patch_authors_by_id

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a useful dependency instruction (read GET/schema first) and notes the PATCH method, but does not disclose auth, rate limits, or what the response contains. The added value is modest but consistent.

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 three concise sentences, directly stating purpose, the HTTP method/path, and arg guidance. There is no extraneous information, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides enough context for a simple update operation: the target, the parameters, and a pointer to discover the body fields. It could mention idempotency or side effects, but those are already covered by annotations. Overall, it's sufficient for correct invocation.

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 clarifies that 'id' is a path parameter and 'body' is the payload, and points to the GET or schema endpoint for field details. This is helpful because 'body' is an open additionalProperties object; without this pointer the agent would have no idea what fields to include.

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 clear action ('Update an author by ID') and specifies the resource and identifier. It distinguishes from other patch tools by targeting authors specifically, and includes the HTTP method and path, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implicitly tells when to use (to update an author) and provides a prerequisite ('Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first'), but it does not mention alternatives or conditions that would make another tool more appropriate. Given the large sibling set, agents get no explicit differentiation guidance.

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