builds_app_encryption_declaration_update_to_one_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions PATCH and a request body schema reference, but says nothing about mutation impact, permissions, whether the relationship is replaced or linked, or what happens to prior linkage.

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 description is short, but it redundantly repeats the same PATCH path in parentheses and leads with a raw endpoint rather than a task-oriented explanation. It is not bloated, but the repetition and OpenAPI reference reduce efficiency.

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?

This is a mutation relationship tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the mutation's effect or the linkage body semantics beyond pointing to an external schema. For an agent needing to call it correctly, that is insufficient.

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 id and body. The description adds only the OpenAPI schema name for the body, which the schema also contains, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning.

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 a specific HTTP verb and resource path: PATCH builds/{id}/relationships/appEncryptionDeclaration. That is enough to identify it as a relationship-update operation, though it does not differentiate from the sibling GET relationship tool or explain the effect in domain terms.

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 PATCH relationship tool versus the GET sibling or versus updating the build itself. The description is only a method-and-path restatement.

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