subscription_images_update_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It mentions the JSON:API envelope requirement, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, partial-update semantics, side effects, validation, or error 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 short but includes a redundant duplication of the endpoint and delegates the substantive body details to an external OpenAPI reference. It is concise to the point of being under-specified rather than efficiently front-loaded.

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 endpoint with a nested body object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides too little context. Pointing to an external OpenAPI schema does not make the definition self-contained enough for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the JSON:API envelope context for the body, which is useful but does not meaningfully expand parameter semantics 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 largely restates the endpoint and tool name as 'PATCH /v1/subscriptionImages/{id}' rather than explaining what updating a subscription image actually does. It does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as subscription_images_v2_update_instance or subscription_images_create_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, such as the v2 update endpoint or the create/delete subscription image tools. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and HTTP method.

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