update_endpoint

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description explains the partial update behavior, which is critical for correct usage. It adds context about how the API handles omitted fields, aligning with idempotentHint=true. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose statement, semantics explanation, examples, and warning. Every sentence adds value. No repetition or fluff.

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 complexity of PATCH semantics, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: how partial updates work, common use cases, and potential pitfalls. References a schema resource for more details. The presence of an output schema does not reduce completeness need.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds semantic value by tying parameters to use cases (is_active with pause/resume, url with redirect) and warns about clearing with empty string. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 starts with 'Patch an existing endpoint', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_endpoint and get_endpoint, and provides common use cases (pause/resume, redirect).

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 explicitly explains PATCH semantics: only fields set in input are sent, omit to leave unchanged. It gives concrete examples for pause/resume and redirect, and warns against including fields the user didn't ask to change (e.g., passing url='' would clear it). This provides clear when-to-use guidance.

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