build_beta_details_update_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about what the update mutates, whether it is a partial (PATCH) merge or full replace, permission/auth requirements, or reversibility, instead deferring everything to an external OpenAPI document the agent may not have.

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 text is a REST endpoint restatement rather than a purpose statement, so nothing is front-loaded for decision-making.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what fields are updatable and what the effect is. Instead it outsources the entire body contract to an external schema reference, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly from this definition alone.

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% for both parameters (id and body), so the schema already documents them. The description points at components.schemas.BuildBetaDetailUpdateRequest for the envelope, which is the same pointer the schema body already gives, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data.

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 states an HTTP method (PATCH) and resource path (/v1/buildBetaDetails/{id}), which an agent can loosely read as 'update a build beta detail'. However, it never says in plain language what is being updated or what the tool is for, and it does not differentiate itself from the sibling build_beta_details_get_instance/get_collection beyond the HTTP verb.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many build_beta_details siblings. The only implicit signal is the PATCH verb versus GET siblings, which is weak routing context.

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