routing_app_coverages_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 delivers almost nothing. It does not disclose what fields can be changed, whether the operation requires specific permissions, whether it is partial or full replacement, or what happens to fields omitted from the body. Only the implicit PATCH semantics hint that it is a mutation.

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 it wastes space by duplicating the route as a parenthetical ('PATCH /v1/routingAppCoverages/{id} (PATCH /v1/routingAppCoverages/{id})'). The one substantive clause points at an external schema rather than explaining anything.

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-object body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. Pointing at an external OpenAPI component is a start but does not tell the agent what is updatable or how to shape the JSON:API request beyond a schema name.

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% and both parameters (id, body) are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds only marginal value by referring to 'the full JSON:API envelope' and the RoutingAppCoverageUpdateRequest component, which the body property already references.

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 tool name restated as an HTTP route: 'PATCH /v1/routingAppCoverages/{id}'. It names a verb (PATCH, implying update) and a resource, but adds no explanation of what a routing app coverage is or what updating it accomplishes. It borders on tautology with the tool name 'routing_app_coverages_update_instance'.

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 tool versus alternatives. Siblings like routing_app_coverages_create_instance, routing_app_coverages_delete_instance, and routing_app_coverages_get_instance exist, but nothing routes the agent between them or states prerequisites.

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