build_upload_files_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 states the HTTP verb and points to an external OpenAPI component for the body. It does not disclose which fields are mutable, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, permission requirements, or what a successful response looks like.

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 it wastes space duplicating the method and path in parentheses and then defers all substance to an external schema reference. Front-loading is present but the content is near-empty.

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?

No output schema exists and no annotations are provided, so the description must carry the load, but it leaves the nested JSON:API body shape entirely to an external OpenAPI component an agent may not have. For a mutation endpoint with a required nested body, this is not enough to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents both 'id' and 'body'. The description adds nothing beyond deferring the body shape to components.schemas.BuildUploadFileUpdateRequest, so the 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 raw HTTP method and path ('PATCH /v1/buildUploadFiles/{id}'), duplicated in parentheses, which just restates the tool name. It never says in domain terms what a build upload file is or what the update accomplishes, so an agent cannot distinguish its purpose from siblings like build_upload_files_create_instance or build_upload_files_get_instance without opening the schema.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many build-upload and update-instance siblings. The only hint is the implied PATCH-on-existing-resource semantics, which is already encoded in the tool name.

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