subscription_plan_availabilities_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. It discloses only that the body follows a 'JSON:API envelope' per an external schema reference, but says nothing about partial vs full update semantics, required permissions, reversibility, or side effects on territory availabilities.

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 single sentence front-loads the endpoint but immediately duplicates it in a redundant parenthetical ('PATCH /v1/subscriptionPlanAvailabilities/{id} (PATCH /v1/subscriptionPlanAvailabilities/{id})'), which is pure noise and wastes the limited space available.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a body defined as an empty schema object, the description should explain the update behavior and actual body fields. Instead it defers to an external OpenAPI reference the agent likely cannot resolve, leaving the call under-specified.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's own pointer to 'components.schemas.SubscriptionPlanAvailabilityUpdateRequest', which is marginally useful given the body parameter is defined only as an opaque object, but it does not explain any actual field 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 names the HTTP verb and resource path (PATCH /v1/subscriptionPlanAvailabilities/{id}), which tells the agent it mutates an existing subscription plan availability. However, this largely restates what the tool name 'subscription_plan_availabilities_update_instance' already implies and provides no stated scope beyond the endpoint, so it is adequate but not sharp.

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 the many sibling update/create tools (e.g. subscription_plan_availabilities_create_instance or _get_instance), no prerequisites or permissions noted, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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