Update a JsonFabrica sequence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a key trait — partial update semantics, meaning unspecified fields are left untouched. However, it omits other behavioral facts: behavior on a nonexistent name, error status codes, response format, or whether updating currentValue affects future generation.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint before stating the change scope. Every word carries information and there is no filler.

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 simple 3-parameter PATCH tool with no nested objects and one required param, the description is largely adequate. But with no output schema and no annotations, it should have noted the return value (updated sequence vs empty response) and error behavior for missing sequences. It is also silent on how this differs from jsonfabrica_bump_sequence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful mapping by indicating name identifies the target sequence (path parameter) and that currentValue and step are the only mutable fields. But it still does not define what currentValue or step mean (e.g., that step is the increment size), leaving the agent to infer their roles.

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+resource: 'Calls PATCH /v1/sequences/{name}' with the scope 'Only the provided fields (currentValue, step) are changed.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like jsonfabrica_create_sequence, jsonfabrica_bump_sequence, jsonfabrica_get_sequence, and jsonfabrica_delete_sequence.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the PATCH semantics and 'Only the provided fields... are changed' indicate partial updates to an existing sequence, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives such as jsonfabrica_bump_sequence for increments. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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