update_request_by_request_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which align with 'Update' and PUT. The description adds the guidance to inspect the schema/GET for the body structure, which is behavioral context. No contradictions, but little extra disclosure beyond 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, starting with the purpose, then the HTTP method, then an Args section. It avoids fluff, but the 'PUT /api/v1/request/{requestId}' line is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be merged. Still well-structured and front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are covered) and there are only two parameters, the description sufficiently guides an agent on how to construct a correct call, especially with the pointer to external schema for the body. No major missing information for a typical mutation tool.

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 must compensate. It defines request_id as 'Request ID' and describes body as a 'Request payload' with explicit instructions to read the GET/schema endpoints to determine its fields. This adds meaningful guidance beyond bare parameter names and types.

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 'Update MediaRequest' with a clear verb and resource, and also includes the HTTP method and path. It is obviously distinct from create/delete/get siblings in name, but does not explicitly contrast with them. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It advises reading the matching GET or /schema endpoint before using, which is a useful precursor, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., update vs create). The context is partially there but not explicit about selection.

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