bundle_ids_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 of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, partial-update semantics, or side effects of the mutation. Pointing at an external OpenAPI schema is a pointer, not a disclosure, and may not be reachable by the agent at call time.

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 appropriate, but the path is needlessly duplicated inside parentheses and the remaining sentence is pure deferral. Every word that is there earns little.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested free-form body object, yet the description supplies no information beyond a spec reference. For an operation whose correctness depends on a complex JSON:API envelope, that leaves significant gaps.

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 id and body parameters are already documented by the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's mention of components.schemas.BundleIdUpdateRequest merely repeats the schema's own body description and adds no format or constraint detail.

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 an HTTP verb and resource path (PATCH /v1/bundleIds/{id}), which identifies the operation, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name in URL form rather than a semantic explanation of what updating a bundle ID means. It does not say what fields are mutable or what a bundle ID represents, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the name alone.

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 versus siblings such as bundle_ids_create_instance, bundle_ids_get_instance, or bundle_ids_delete_instance, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer everything from the operation name.

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