PUT /models/{id}

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not explain what gets overwritten, whether omitted fields are cleared, or that a confirm='YES' string is required when SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES=true.

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 short and front-loaded with the operation, but the second sentence ('Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation modelsid-1') is metadata noise that does not help invocation. It is concise without being informative.

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, nested-body mutation with no output schema, the description is far too thin — it omits required fields, confirm-write semantics, permission expectations, and return behavior. It does not give the agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage and a nested body object whose fields (eol, notes, requestable, model_number, etc.) are undocumented, the description provides no compensating meaning. It does not clarify the required body fields (name, category_id) or the semantics of the confirm parameter.

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 ('Update a model') plus the endpoint, so the basic purpose is clear. However, it provides no differentiation from the many sibling model operations (snipeit_gen_modelsid, snipeit_gen_modelsid_2, etc.), leaving the agent unable to tell which model mutation this one is for.

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 tool versus alternatives such as snipeit_gen_modelsid or snipeit_gen_modelsid_2, nor any mention of prerequisites or the confirm-write behavior. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the endpoint name.

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