territory_availabilities_update_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about mutation semantics, required permissions, whether the update is partial or full, or side effects. It only points at an OpenAPI schema reference for the body, which is a pointer 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?

The text is short but wastes space by duplicating the same method and path twice in parentheses, and it substitutes a schema pointer for actual content. Front-loading is fine, but the redundancy and lack of substance undermine it.

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 nested object body, the description should explain effects and prerequisites. Instead it defers entirely to an external OpenAPI reference, leaving the agent without enough to call 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% (both id and body are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already states, only repeating the reference to components.schemas.TerritoryAvailabilityUpdateRequest.

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/territoryAvailabilities/{id}), which identifies the action and target, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no explanation of what an update to a territory availability actually changes. There is no differentiation from the many sibling update_instance tools beyond the path itself.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as creating or deleting territory availabilities. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the path.

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