marketplace_webhooks_update_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait beyond structured data — the deprecation status — and flags that the body follows a JSON:API envelope. It is silent, though, on auth requirements, side effects, and reversibility for a mutation operation.

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-loads the important [DEPRECATED] marker, but the path is needlessly duplicated ('PATCH /v1/marketplaceWebhooks/{id} (PATCH /v1/marketplaceWebhooks/{id})'), which is wasted space in a two-sentence definition.

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 free-form nested body that defers to an external OpenAPI schema not included here, the description is too thin. It never indicates which fields are updatable, what authorization is needed, or what the operation 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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description's pointer to MarketplaceWebhookUpdateRequest duplicates the schema's own reference. It adds only the marginal 'full JSON:API envelope' framing, which is the correct baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource (PATCH /v1/marketplaceWebhooks/{id}), so an agent can infer it partially updates a marketplace webhook. However, it never states the purpose in plain language and largely restates the endpoint implied by the tool name, so it sits at the 'vague purpose' tier rather than clearly distinguishing itself from siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative routing. The [DEPRECATED] marker functions as an implied 'when not to use' signal, which is useful, but it never says what to use instead, leaving usage only partly inferred.

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