onboarding_patch_plan_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description owes extra context and supplies none. It does not say whether the update is partial or full-replace, whether unspecified fields are cleared, whether the plan must be in a specific status (e.g. not EXECUTING/UPDATING before patching), or what permission is required.

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 first sentence is duplicated almost exactly by the second, wasting a third of the text, and the raw HTTP path restates the annotation title. What remains is not front-loaded with any actionable guidance.

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 and an 18-field nested body, the definition should say what the update does to an existing plan and whether the body is a partial or full payload. The route and repeat sentence are correct but insufficient for confident invocation; the schema at least pins the required fields.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema for either the {id} path parameter or the large nested body, which includes many optional fields (status, endpointIds, usePlacements, deploymentTag*, refresh*Micros) that an agent must reason about unaided.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Update the selected onboarding plan in the current organization"), but it is buried in a near-verbatim repeat of the same sentence, and it never distinguishes this tool from the adjacent onboarding_patch_blueprint_by_id, onboarding_patch_deployment_by_id, or onboarding_patch_resource_by_id siblings.

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 indication of when to use this over the get/post/delete plan variants or the other PATCH tools in the onboarding family; the only added information is the raw PATCH route, which is already in the annotations title.

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