PUT /licenses/{id}

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, so the description should explain what a destructive PUT on a license actually does (overwrites fields, partial vs full replace, category_id required). Instead it adds zero context beyond the annotations and the 'Generated from OpenAPI operation' note, which tells the agent nothing about 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?

It is short, but every sentence is filler: a repeated path and a provenance note. Brevity here comes from under-specification, not economy.

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?

A destructive mutation tool with a nested 18-field body, no output schema, and only 67% schema coverage. The description provides nothing about return behavior, required vs optional body fields, or the confirm gate — far below what an agent needs to call it safely.

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 67% and the id and confirm parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning to the large nested body (18 fields, category_id required) and says nothing about the confirm=YES write gate, which is a non-obvious operational requirement worth surfacing in prose.

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 is essentially the tool name and title restated: 'PUT /licenses/{id}: /licenses/:id.' Only the HTTP verb implies an update; no resource domain (licenses) semantics, no statement of what updating a license entails, and no differentiation from the many sibling license tools (snipeit_gen_licensesid, _2, _3, seats variants).

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites. Given ~10 license-related siblings, the agent gets no routing signal at all.

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