PATCH /licenses/{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 externally. The description adds no context of its own — nothing about which fields get replaced, whether the PATCH is partial vs full, or the SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES workflow beyond what the schema already states for `confirm`.

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 the two clauses say the same thing (path repeated twice) and the third clause is generator boilerplate that conveys nothing an agent can act on. There is no front-loaded statement of what the operation actually does.

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, open-world mutation with a large nested body object and no output schema. For that complexity, the description provides essentially nothing — no field semantics, no confirmation behavior beyond the schema's own const, no effects of the update. Completely inadequate for the tool's risk profile.

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 a moderate 67%: the `id` and `confirm` params are documented in-schema, but the nested `body` object's ~20 properties have no descriptions at all. The description offers no clarification of body field semantics, partial-update behavior, or which fields are required, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered nested parameters.

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 restates the HTTP verb and path already present in the name and title ("PATCH /licenses/{id}: /licenses/:id"), which is essentially a tautology. It never says in plain language that it updates a license record's fields, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like snipeit_gen_licensesid_1, snipeit_gen_licensesid_3, or snipeit_gen_put_licensesidseatsseat_id.

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 about when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to choose instead. The only content is the endpoint path and a generator provenance note, leaving selection entirely to inference from the name.

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