beta_license_agreements_update_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. PATCH hints at a partial update, but there is no statement about permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what the mutation affects; it only defers the request shape to an external OpenAPI component.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but the path is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which is pure waste, and the substantive content is a reference to an external document rather than inline information. Front-loading the route is fine, but the sentence does not earn its space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation endpoint with a nested, free-form body object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it neither summarizes the updatable fields nor confirms success/return behavior, delegating everything to a spec the agent may not be able to open.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both id and body are documented, including the pointer to BetaLicenseAgreementUpdateRequest), so the schema already does the work. The description repeats the same pointer without adding syntax, format, or field-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is essentially the tool name spelled out as an HTTP route: 'PATCH /v1/betaLicenseAgreements/{id}'. There is no natural-language statement of what updating a beta license agreement accomplishes, and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling beta_license_agreements_get_instance / get_collection beyond the verb baked into the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., which agreement fields are editable, whether the agreement must be in a particular state). The agent is left to infer everything from the HTTP verb.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.