openwisp_patch_credential

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether this destructive operation requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what fields can be updated. Only the HTTP method hints at partial-update behavior.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences. The category tag and HTTP endpoint are efficiently stated with no redundancy.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a single required parameter, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what fields can be patched, what the response looks like, or how it differs from update_credential.

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?

Only one parameter (id) with 100% schema description coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema fully documents the parameter, and the description adds nothing beyond what's already in 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 ('Partially update'), resource ('connection credential'), and includes the category and HTTP method (PATCH /api/v1/connection/credential/{id}/). Clear distinction from update_credential (PUT) and create/delete 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?

No guidance on when to use PATCH vs update_credential (PUT) or other siblings. The HTTP verb implies partial update semantics but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to guidance is given.

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