catalog_patch_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/scope profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation — no mention of what state is changed, reversibility, or auth requirements. The 'Enable or disabled' typo also slightly reduces confidence.

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?

One short sentence with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the endpoint. No waste, though the endpoint restates the low-level route rather than adding agent-useful information and the typo 'disabled' is a small blemish.

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 single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It omits scope prerequisites (organization context, required permissions) and does not distinguish this patch from the sibling POST/GET/DELETE scenario-config tools.

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%, with 'enabled' and 'scenarioId' documented inline, so baseline 3 applies. The description implies the boolean toggle and the target scenario but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Enable or disable') and resource ('a notification scenario configuration of an organization'), which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like catalog_get_scenario_config, catalog_post_scenario_configs, or catalog_delete_scenario_configs_by_scenario_id.

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 offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (org scope, permissions), and no reference to alternative tools such as catalog_post_scenario_configs for creation or catalog_get_scenario_config for reads. The only hint is the PATCH endpoint line.

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