subscriptions_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 it discloses almost nothing: no auth requirements, no note on partial vs full update semantics, no mention of side effects or reversibility. The one useful hint is pointing at components.schemas.SubscriptionUpdateRequest for the body envelope, but that is parameter guidance rather than behavioral context.

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 and front-loads the endpoint, but the parenthetical '(PATCH /v1/subscriptions/{id})' duplicates the preceding text verbatim, wasting the one sentence it has. Concise, but not information-dense.

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, free-form JSON:API body (additionalProperties: {}), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no help on what the update actually changes or how to construct the opaque body beyond a schema reference.

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% (both id and body are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the pointer to the OpenAPI component for the JSON:API body envelope, which largely duplicates the schema's own 'Shape: components.schemas.SubscriptionUpdateRequest' note and provides no syntax or field-level detail.

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 endpoint (PATCH /v1/subscriptions/{id}), which does convey a specific verb and resource and lets an agent distinguish it from subscriptions_get_instance / create_instance / delete_instance. However, it never states in prose what an 'update' of a subscription means or what fields are mutable, so it reads as a route restatement rather than a purpose statement.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or related tools (e.g., update vs create vs delete, or the subscription_offer_codes_update_instance sibling). The only routing signal is the implicit PATCH verb.

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