update_importlist_by_id

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

Annotations already clarify this is a mutating, idempotent, non-readonly operation. The description adds the HTTP method and points to the GET/schema endpoint for understanding body fields, which is useful. It does not disclose effect details such as whether force_save bypasses validation or what fields are overwritten.

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 well-organized: a clear one-line purpose, the HTTP endpoint, and an Args list. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no filler, though the Args section is somewhat terse.

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 opaque body object and 0% schema coverage, the description's pointer to the matching GET or /schema endpoint is helpful. However, force_save is left semantically unexplained, and the description does not cover what a successful update returns or how validation behaves. Annotations and the output schema reduce the burden, but gaps remain.

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 identifies id as a path parameter, body as the request payload, and force_save as a query parameter, which adds location info beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the meaning of force_save or describe body fields directly, only pointing to another endpoint.

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 operation with a specific verb and resource: 'Update ImportList.' The PUT URL with {id} and the required id path parameter confirm this updates a single existing import list by id, distinguishing it from create, delete, and bulk update 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?

The usage is implied: use this tool to update a specific ImportList by id. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_importlist, update_importlist_bulk, or delete_importlist_by_id. The instruction to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint provides some practical guidance for constructing the request.

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