openwisp_patch_template

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose that the operation is a partial update via HTTP PATCH. It does not describe permissions required, what happens to unspecified fields, or the response shape, so significant behavioral context is still missing.

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 compact clauses that front-load the category and core action before the endpoint. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description should clarify enough for correct invocation. It says 'partially update' but never explains how the fields to patch are supplied, and the schema only exposes id, so an agent lacks critical context for actually performing the PATCH.

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% for the single required id parameter, so the schema already documents it as a Template UUID. The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the resource in the endpoint path, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Partially update a template') and includes the HTTP PATCH path, which clearly implies partial-update semantics as opposed to a full update. It does not explicitly name or route to the sibling update_template tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 word 'Partially' implies that this tool should be used when only some template fields need to change, which is a form of implicit usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus update_template, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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