devices_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, and it delivers almost nothing beyond the PATCH verb (which weakly implies a partial update). It does not disclose auth/permission requirements, idempotency, side effects, what happens to unspecified fields, or the response shape. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but the operation is stated twice redundantly ('PATCH /v1/devices/{id} (PATCH /v1/devices/{id})'), which is pure waste. Its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 a nested JSON:API body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. Pointing the agent at an unresolvable external schema reference ('components.schemas.DeviceUpdateRequest') leaves the caller without the information needed to construct a correct request.

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 baseline is 3. Both parameters (id, body) are documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing beyond restating that the body shape lives in an external OpenAPI schema, which does not enrich 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 conveys the operation only as an HTTP verb+path (PATCH /v1/devices/{id}), from which an agent can infer 'update a device resource'. However, it never states in natural language what a device is in this context or what updating it entails, so the purpose is derivable but vague. Siblings like devices_get_instance and devices_create_instance are not referenced, though the path does implicitly distinguish it.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the update operation from the HTTP verb alone, with nothing about when a caller should choose it over get/create.

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