patch_series_by_id

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

The annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), and the description adds little behavioral context beyond the PATCH method and path. It does not disclose partial-update semantics, side effects, or authorization requirements, so it provides minimal value over the structured annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the operation, and uses a clear Args listing. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant prose.

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 two-parameter mutation endpoint with an output schema and safety annotations, the definition is largely sufficient. The body-discovery guidance is the critical missing schema piece; the only remaining gaps are minor, such as explicitly stating partial-update behavior and permissions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and an opaque additionalProperties body, the description adds essential meaning: id is a path parameter, body is the payload, and the agent must consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover expected fields. This directly compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 verb and resource ('Update series'), so an agent knows the target operation. It does not add scope or differentiate against other update/patch siblings beyond the resource name, which keeps it just short of a top score.

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 use case is implied by 'Update series,' and the instruction to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is a useful precondition for calling it correctly. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over sibling patch or create endpoints, or when not to use it.

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