territory_availabilities__update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond the HTTP method. It does not clarify partial update semantics, return value, or side effects. The endpoint path is useful but not a behavioral trait.

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, direct sentence with the endpoint included. Every word is functional, with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema, the description should provide more context, such as what fields are updatable, that it's a partial update, or what the response contains. It relies entirely on the schema and annotations, which leaves gaps for an agent selecting the tool.

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 have detailed descriptions, and nested attributes are documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('a territory availability'), clearly distinguishing this from list/get/delete tools for related resources. It also includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which reinforces the action.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining an ID via a list call) or contrast with related availability tools like app_availabilities_v2__territory_availabilities__list. The only usage hint ('ID from the matching list call') is in the schema, not the description.

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