nominations_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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the route: no indication that this is a mutating PATCH, no note on partial-update semantics, reversibility, or auth requirements. It merely defers to an external OpenAPI schema that the agent cannot see.

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 route is needlessly duplicated as 'PATCH /v1/nominations/{id} (PATCH /v1/nominations/{id})', and the one substantive addition (the schema reference) is buried in the parenthetical. Little information is delivered for the space used.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque nested body, the definition is far too thin. An agent gets no sense of what fields are updatable, what the response looks like, or any side-effect context needed to invoke it safely.

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 both parameters (id, body) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a pointer to 'components.schemas.NominationUpdateRequest' for the opaque body, which gives orientation but no field-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 HTTP route 'PATCH /v1/nominations/{id}' rather than saying in agent terms that it updates an existing nomination. The resource and verb are inferable from the route, but nothing explains what a nomination is or what 'updating' it entails, so it is effectively a tautology of the tool name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many siblings such as nominations_create_instance, nominations_get_instance, or nominations_delete_instance. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of required permissions.

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