PATCH /hardware/{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. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not disclose that omitted fields may be cleared, that a confirmation gate exists, or any permission requirements. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

It is short and front-loads the route and action, which is good. The second sentence, 'Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation hardware-partial-update', is boilerplate that conveys nothing actionable and consumes half the description.

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 destructive write with a large nested body and a confirmation requirement, and there is no output schema to fall back on. The description covers none of the risk-relevant context an agent needs before mutating a production asset record.

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 only 67%, and the nested body object exposes roughly 20 fields with no descriptions anywhere. The description says nothing about which fields are patchable, the type quirks (location_id is a string while rtd_location_id is an integer), or the confirm='YES' gate, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Partially updates a specific asset') plus the HTTP route, which makes PATCH semantics distinguishable from a full PUT update. It does not name sibling alternatives like snipeit_update_hardware or snipeit_gen_hardware_update, so an agent must infer which update variant to pick.

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' hints at sending only changed fields, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no contrast with the full-update siblings, and no mention that the 'confirm' parameter may be required. The agent is left to infer routing between near-identical update tools.

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