Update a Flarum resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (PATCH) and examples of side effects (lock, sticky, hide). However, it does not mention required permissions, idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving gaps.

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 description is two sentences plus an example, immediately stating the core action and purpose. Every sentence adds unique value; no filler.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and 9 siblings, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter usage via example, and typical use cases. It lacks details on return values or error conditions but is sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value beyond schema with a concrete example showing how 'attributes' and 'type'/'id' are used together, and enumerates possible moderation actions.

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 explicitly states 'Update (PATCH) any Flarum resource by type and id' and provides concrete examples of use (editing posts, moderation actions). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like flarum_create, flarum_delete, flarum_get, etc.

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 gives examples of when to use the tool (editing, moderation) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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