PATCH /accessories/{id}

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds genuine value with 'Selectively updates', signaling partial-update semantics where omitted fields are left untouched. It stops short of stating side effects (e.g. changing qty affects available stock) or the confirmation requirement.

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 efficient and front-loaded, but the second — 'Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation accessoriesid-2' — is generator boilerplate that consumes roughly half the text without adding information an agent can act on.

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 destructive mutation with an 11-field nested body, a conditional confirmation parameter, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no picture of what the body fields do, what the write affects, or what a successful response looks like.

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 only 33% — only `confirm` is documented, and the entire nested `body` object (qty, name, company_id, category_id, location_id, supplier_id, purchase_cost, etc.) carries types but no meaning. The description contributes nothing about any parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 — 'Selectively updates an accessory' — and PATCH semantics are implied by 'selectively'. However, it does nothing to differentiate itself from the crowded accessory sibling set (snipeit_gen_accessoriesid_1, _3, _checkedout, _checkout, _checkin), whose suffixes give an agent no clue which is the partial-update endpoint.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the other accessory endpoints (e.g. a full-update or raw-request sibling), nor any mention of the SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES gate that governs whether the call will actually apply. The agent must infer everything from the name and schema.

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