onboarding_patch_resource_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the update is a partial merge or a full replace, which fields are actually mutable, whether missing fields are cleared, 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 two lines say the same thing twice, and the third line is a raw HTTP path that duplicates what the annotations' title already contains. The content is short but a third of it is pure redundancy rather than front-loaded signal.

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 mutation with a nested required body of roughly ten fields and no output schema; the description should at minimum clarify update semantics (merge vs replace) and any required identifiers beyond the path id. It instead repeats itself and appends an endpoint string, leaving the agent without the operational context needed to call it correctly.

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 id path parameter and the nested body fields (planLink, resourceLink, resourceName, tagLinks, etc.) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning about the body contract, which is the baseline 3 when the schema carries the load.

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 verb ("Update") and a resource ("onboarding resource in the current organization"), so the general intent is recoverable. However, "the selected onboarding resource" is vague about which resource, and there is no differentiation from the closely named siblings onboarding_patch_plan_by_id, onboarding_patch_deployment_by_id and onboarding_patch_blueprint_by_id beyond the resource noun already present in the tool name.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as onboarding_post_resource (create) or onboarding_get_resource_by_id (read), and no preconditions. The agent must infer PATCH-vs-POST semantics entirely from the tool name.

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