bundle_id_capabilities_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 says nothing about update semantics (replace vs. merge of capability attributes), required auth/entitlements, reversibility, or rate limits. The only behavioral hint is that the body follows a JSON:API envelope, which is thin for a mutation endpoint.

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 and front-loaded, which is good, but the endpoint path is printed twice in immediate succession ('PATCH /v1/bundleIdCapabilities/{id} (PATCH /v1/bundleIdCapabilities/{id})'), which is pure redundancy that a clean description would not contain.

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, no output schema, and a nested JSON:API body with additionalProperties allowed, the description is inadequate. It never explains the envelope contents (type/id/attributes), which attributes are updatable, or what a successful response returns.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to the OpenAPI BundleIdCapabilityUpdateRequest schema is redundant with the schema's own body description, adding no new parameter-level 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 names the HTTP verb (PATCH) and the resource path (/v1/bundleIdCapabilities/{id}), so the operation and target are identifiable. However, it largely restates the tool name ('update_instance' on 'bundle_id_capabilities') and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like bundle_id_capabilities_create_instance or bundle_id_capabilities_delete_instance.

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, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from the create/delete siblings in the same family. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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