merchant_ids_update_instance

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It conveys only that this is a PATCH (partial mutation) and points at components.schemas.MerchantIdUpdateRequest for the body, but says nothing about what gets modified, whether the change is reversible, required permissions, or what the response contains.

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, but the parenthetical duplicate of the path and verb is pure waste, and the string splits into two fragments rather than a front-loaded statement of intent. Nothing is padded, but nothing is prioritized either.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and an opaque free-form body object, the description should at minimum explain the JSON:API envelope and the effect of the update. Pointing at an external OpenAPI component that may not be reachable at call time leaves the agent without enough to construct the body 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% — both id and body are documented in the schema, including the components.schemas.MerchantIdUpdateRequest reference — so the baseline is 3. The description repeats that same schema pointer rather than adding syntax, format, or field-level detail beyond structured data.

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 restates the tool name as an HTTP call (PATCH /v1/merchantIds/{id}), duplicating the same path twice in parentheses. It never says in plain language what a merchant ID is or what updating one changes, and it names no siblings such as merchant_ids_get_instance or merchant_ids_delete_instance, so it adds nothing the name and schema do not already convey.

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 instead of merchant_ids_create_instance, merchant_ids_get_instance, or merchant_ids_delete_instance, and no prerequisites (permissions, preconditions on the existing record) are mentioned. The only signal is the HTTP verb, which the agent must interpret unaided.

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