update_exclusions_by_id

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false. The description adds the PUT method and points out that the body should match an existing resource representation from GET or /schema, but it doesn't explicitly say whether this is a full replacement or partial update, or what happens if the id is absent.

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 and front-loaded: purpose, HTTP method/endpoint, then a two-item Args list. No filler words, and each line contributes.

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?

With an output schema and annotations available, the base context is solid, but the description could better support tool selection by saying this updates an existing exclusion (distinct from create) and by clarifying the body semantics. The pointer to GET/schema is helpful, but the overall description remains skeletal for a large sibling API.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It does: 'id: Path parameter' adds the path location missing from the schema, and the body guidance is important because the body schema is just additionalProperties:true; telling the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint prevents it from sending arbitrary JSON.

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 'Update ImportListExclusion', a clear verb plus resource, and repeats the REST endpoint, so an agent knows this modifies an existing exclusion by id. It doesn't list the updatable fields, but the resource name and endpoint are specific enough to separate it from create/delete/get/list exclusions siblings.

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?

There is no statement about when to choose this tool over siblings such as create_exclusions, delete_exclusions_by_id, or list_exclusions. The only guidance, reading the matching GET or /schema endpoint, is about how to construct the body rather than when to use this update operation.

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