update_customformat_by_id

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the prerequisite of consulting GET/schema, but it does not disclose update semantics such as partial vs full replacement or what happens to omitted fields. No contradiction with 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: a one-line purpose, the HTTP endpoint, and two parameter lines with a key prerequisite. Each sentence adds information and the critical discovery instruction is easy to parse.

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 tool with an output schema and non-destructive/idempotent annotations, the description is largely complete: it identifies the id, the body, and how to discover the body schema. It could add an explicit note about single-resource versus bulk update, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it correctly.

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 labeling id as a path parameter and body as a request payload, and it directs the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint to learn the expected fields. This is meaningful beyond the bare property names, though concrete body fields are intentionally left to the schema 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update CustomFormat') and exposes the endpoint PUT /api/v3/customformat/{id}, so an agent can tell it is a per-id update. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling update_customformat_bulk or other update variants; it relies on the tool name to carry that distinction.

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 one useful procedural instruction: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before supplying a body. It does not state when to choose this tool over update_customformat_bulk or when not to use it, so selection vs alternatives is only implied by the 'by_id' name.

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