onboarding_patch_deployment_by_id

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'PATCH', implying partial-update semantics, but says nothing about which fields are optional, side effects, or propagation to Assembler that the schema hints at.

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 same sentence appears twice verbatim plus a raw API path line, which is pure repetition rather than front-loaded substance. The redundancy wastes space without adding any distinguishing information.

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?

This is a mutating tool with a nested request body and no output schema, yet the description never explains partial-update behavior, required-field implications, or what a successful response looks like. Annotations cover safety but the description leaves real gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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% across both parameters, so the schema already documents id as the path parameter and the nested body fields including required planLink. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('onboarding deployment') and includes the HTTP method and path, which distinguishes it from siblings like onboarding_get_deployment_by_id, onboarding_delete_deployment_by_id and onboarding_patch_plan_by_id. However, the sentence is repeated twice with no added information, and it never says what a deployment actually is.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as onboarding_patch_plan_by_id or onboarding_patch_resource_by_id. The agent must infer from the name that this is the mutation counterpart to the get/delete siblings.

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