update_qualitydefinition_by_id

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the PUT method and path, which imply replace semantics. It does not disclose what happens to omitted fields, validation behavior, or side effects, so the additional behavioral context is minimal beyond 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 and front-loaded: the action and endpoint appear first, followed by a short structured Args list. No sentence is wasted; the prerequisite hint about GET/schema is essential and clearly placed.

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 update endpoint with an output schema, the description covers the essential elements: the endpoint, the path parameter, and the dynamic body payload with a discovery mechanism. It could be more complete by stating whether the update is a full replacement or partial merge, but the PUT method and idempotent annotation cover the most important behavior.

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, the description compensates by identifying id as a path parameter and explains that body is a request payload whose structure must be discovered from the matching GET or /schema endpoint. This gives the agent a concrete strategy for constructing the body, though it does not enumerate the actual body fields.

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 specific verb and resource ('Update QualityDefinition.') and provides the HTTP endpoint, making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling update_qualitydefinition_update or explain what a QualityDefinition is, so it misses the explicit sibling distinction required for a 5.

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 a useful prerequisite guideline – 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects' – which tells the agent how to prepare the payload. It does not, however, specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like update_qualitydefinition_update, so the when-to-use guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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