accessibility_declarations__update

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the core behavior is covered. The description adds only the HTTP method (PATCH), which hints at partial update semantics, but doesn't elaborate on overwrite behavior or return values.

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 a single sentence plus endpoint, with zero filler words.

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?

Given the rich schema detailing all updatable attributes and the annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, the description is adequate for invocation. It lacks explicit return-value information and partial-update behavior, but these are not critical for a straightforward PATCH operation.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage: id is described as 'ID from the matching list call' and body as 'JSON:API request body (Apple schema: AccessibilityDeclarationUpdateRequest).' These descriptions add practical context beyond the schema's type definitions, particularly for obtaining the ID and the API format.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an accessibility declaration'), with the HTTP endpoint PATCH /v1/accessibilityDeclarations/{id} distinguishing it from create/delete/list siblings.

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?

The description implies this tool is for modifying an existing accessibility declaration, and the id parameter description 'ID from the matching list call' provides a prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with create/delete or state when not to use this tool.

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