patchLicenseAssignment

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

Although annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds concrete behavioral detail: repeated calls leave the same end state with no additional side effects, and dry_run previews the exact request without changing anything. It also explains the error-flagged preview convention. The description does not contradict any annotation.

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 front-loaded with purpose, sibling differentiation, idempotency, and the dry-run tip, each earning its place. The final sentence about tools with a typed output schema is conditional boilerplate and not directly relevant here since this tool has no output schema, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description covers purpose, cardinality, the batch alternative, idempotency, dry-run behavior, and the cloud limitation, which is strong for a single-item update tool. It does not describe the success response shape, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the dry-run note covers the most unusual output behavior.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (userId, dry_run, requestBody), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds useful cardinality and dry-run context but does not explain the nested requestBody structure beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Updates a user's License Assignment.' It immediately distinguishes this tool from the plural sibling patchLicenseAssignments by stating cardinality ('targets a single item by ID'), so an agent can select it correctly without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'For the full collection or a batch, use patchLicenseAssignments instead.' It also warns that cloud-based Polarion X is not supported and advises using dry_run first, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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