sandbox_testers_v2_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. It discloses only that this is a PATCH endpoint and points to an external OpenAPI schema for the body, but does not describe mutation effects, required permissions, idempotency, partial-update semantics, or response behavior.

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 description is very short and front-loads the endpoint, but it redundantly repeats the same PATCH path in parentheses. It is concise but too sparse to add much explanatory value.

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 request body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. Referencing an external OpenAPI schema does not give an agent the field-level detail needed to construct a valid update body.

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 the schema already documents both the id and body parameters. The description adds little beyond repeating the body-schema reference, which is acceptable given the high coverage but does not meaningfully clarify parameter semantics.

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 the HTTP method and resource path, making clear that this updates a sandbox tester v2 by ID. It is specific enough to distinguish the resource from read or clear-history siblings, but it never states the purpose in prose or explains what fields can be updated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions, required permissions, or scenarios where it should not be used. The agent must infer usage entirely from the endpoint.

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