review_submissions_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 burden, and it discloses nothing: no partial-update semantics for PATCH, no required vs optional body fields, no permission/auth requirements, and no indication of side effects or reversibility.

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 string is duplicated verbatim in parentheses and the single content sentence defers entirely to an external OpenAPI reference, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness rather than from efficient editing.

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 completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what is being changed, what the body must contain, or what will be returned.

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% for both parameters (id and body), so the schema already documents them; the description merely points at components.schemas.ReviewSubmissionUpdateRequest without adding any field-level meaning, which matches the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 is essentially the raw HTTP route ('PATCH /v1/reviewSubmissions/{id}') repeated twice. It implies an update of a review submission but never states in plain language what a review submission is or what updating it accomplishes, so an agent gets no more than the name already conveys.

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 at all. With close siblings like review_submissions_create_instance, review_submissions_get_instance, and review_submission_items_update_instance, the definition offers nothing about when this update should be chosen over those alternatives.

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