beta_recruitment_criteria_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, yet it only implies a partial update via 'PATCH'. It says nothing about required permissions, whether the update is reversible, what happens to unmentioned fields, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

The text is short, but the path is repeated parenthetically ('PATCH /v1/betaRecruitmentCriteria/{id} (PATCH /v1/betaRecruitmentCriteria/{id})'), which is pure duplication that earns no place. Brevity keeps it from being worse.

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 tool with a nested body object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it never explains what the update does, does not inline the body shape, and omits auth or response context. An agent must go outside the definition to invoke it safely.

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%, so both id and body are documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only a pointer to the OpenAPI component schema for the body envelope, without clarifying any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 exposes the HTTP verb (PATCH) and the resource path (/v1/betaRecruitmentCriteria/{id}), which lets an agent infer this updates a beta recruitment criterion and distinguishes it from the create/delete siblings by method. However it is a raw endpoint reference rather than a purpose statement, and the path is duplicated redundantly without prose explanation of what is being updated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling beta_recruitment_criteria_create_instance or beta_recruitment_criteria_delete_instance, nor any prerequisite or lifecycle context. The HTTP method is the only implied selector.

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