Patch Managed Object Definition

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint: false) and open world (openWorldHint: true). The description adds context about PATCH operations and field paths, but does not cover side effects or permissions. It aligns with annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, both informative and no redundancy. The important restriction is highlighted with 'IMPORTANT'. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the tool has two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, field path format, and the relationship restriction. Could mention return behavior, but not critical. Adequate for an agent.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions. The description adds value by explaining field paths relative to the object and providing an example, clarifying the operations array structure beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool modifies an existing managed object type definition using ForgeRock PATCH operations, specifying the resource and action. It differentiates from the sibling tool patchManagedObjectRelationship by noting that relationship properties cannot be modified here.

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?

The description explicitly states when not to use this tool (cannot modify relationship properties) and directs to the alternative patchManagedObjectRelationship. This provides clear usage guidance.

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