Update Bruno request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the partial-update nature and the preflight bypass behavior. However, it does not state side effects like persistence, what happens on a revision mismatch, or what the response contains, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the core patch behavior is front-loaded, and the operational revision tip follows immediately. The description avoids repeating parameter-level schema details.

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 an 18-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus the rich schema provides enough to select and invoke the tool correctly: patch an existing request, preserve untouched content, and optionally bypass preflight. Missing details like return shape and conflict behavior are minor but would make it more complete.

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 already documents most parameter meanings in detail. The description adds the cross-cutting patch semantics that omitted content is preserved, which is essential for constructing correct patches. The expectedRevision wildcard tip mostly reinforces existing schema text, so this is above baseline but not exceptional.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Patch'), a clear resource ('existing Bruno HTTP request'), and the critical scope 'preserving untouched content'. This unmistakably distinguishes it from bruno_create_request and from read/run siblings without needing the schema.

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 usage is implied: this is for modifying an existing request, not creating one. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as bruno_create_request or advises calling bruno_get_request first to fetch a revision. The expectedRevision='*' tip is a useful operational detail but not a full when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guideline.

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