ci_workflows_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 disclosure burden. It says nothing about what PATCH semantics mean here (partial vs full replacement), which fields are mutable, required permissions, reversibility, or side effects on builds. Only the fact that the body follows a JSON:API envelope is conveyed.

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?

Very short, but the path is duplicated verbatim inside parentheses, which is pure waste. Front-loading is fine, but the single sentence is a pointer rather than an explanation.

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 a nested, externally-defined request body, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain the JSON:API envelope contents or what a successful response looks like, so an agent would need outside documentation 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 coverage is 100% and the description merely repeats the schema's own reference to components.schemas.CiWorkflowUpdateRequest. It adds no meaning about the id or the body fields, so it provides nothing beyond structured data despite the nested body object being opaque.

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?

Names the HTTP verb and resource (PATCH /v1/ciWorkflows/{id}), so an agent can infer it updates a single CI workflow. But there is no plain-language statement of purpose and no differentiation from siblings like ci_workflows_create_instance or ci_workflows_delete_instance beyond the HTTP method.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never mentions alternatives. The agent must infer from the verb alone that this is the tool for modifying an existing workflow rather than creating or deleting one.

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