patch_backups_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the instruction to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which hints at the need to discover the expected fields. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on update, whether the path is validated, or any side effects beyond the annotation hints.

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 core action 'Update backups path'. The HTTP method and the pointer to the schema endpoint are useful. It is not bloated, though the 'Args:' formatting is a bit mechanical.

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 PATCH operation with an opaque body parameter and no schema coverage, the description is thin. It relies on the agent fetching the GET or /schema endpoint, which is a reasonable pattern but leaves the tool incomplete on its own. There is no output schema detail in the description, and the open-world body means the agent needs more context to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter 'body' is an open object with additionalProperties: true. The description says to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to see the fields, which is a pointer but not actual semantic content. It does not name any fields or explain what the body should contain, leaving the agent to do extra discovery work.

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 says 'Update backups path' which is a clear verb+resource, and the HTTP method PATCH is shown. However, it doesn't explain what 'backups path' means or what the update accomplishes, and it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like create_backups or delete_backups_by_id beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, which is a prerequisite but not a usage condition. There is no mention of when a PATCH to the backups path is appropriate or what scenarios call for it.

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