builds_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 burden and largely fails it: it never states permissions required, that PATCH is a partial mutation, what fields are mutable, or what gets overwritten. The only behavioral hint is 'the full JSON:API envelope,' which weakly signals the request structure but nothing about side effects.

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 parenthetical literally repeats the path/verb ('(PATCH /v1/builds/{id})'), which is pure redundancy, and the only substantive content is a pointer to an external OpenAPI schema the agent cannot retrieve. Front-loaded verb+resource is good; the wasted duplication and unactionable pointer hurt it.

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 JSON:API mutation with a nested request body, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should explain the envelope structure and mutable fields. Instead it defers to 'components.schemas.BuildUpdateRequest,' an external reference not supplied to the agent, leaving the core task under-specified.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, body) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the BuildUpdateRequest body shape duplicates the schema's own description rather than adding format, required-field, or relationship details, 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 gives the HTTP verb and path (PATCH /v1/builds/{id}), which conveys a partial-update operation on a build resource and is marginally better than restating the name alone. However, it offers no natural-language statement of what a build update affects, and it does not distinguish this from sibling mutation tools. It sits at the minimum-viable line.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance. The PATCH verb implicitly signals 'modify an existing build,' but nothing tells the agent how this relates to builds_get_instance/builds_get_collection or which fields warrant an update versus other build sub-resource calls.

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