update_remotepathmapping_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, aligning with the 'Update' action. The description adds the HTTP method (PUT) and a pointer to GET/schema for field discovery, but does not disclose behaviors like full replacement vs. merge, error handling for nonexistent IDs, or response contents. With annotations covering the basic mutation profile, the description offers modest added context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: three short lines with a clear verb+resource declaration, the endpoint, and an argument breakdown. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the endpoint line is partially redundant with the tool name. It is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 an update operation with a generic body object and no parameter schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It tells the user to read GET or /schema, which is helpful, but it omits critical context: whether the body expects a full representation (PUT semantics), how partial updates are handled, error behavior for missing IDs, and authentication requirements (if any). Given the availability of an output schema and the moderate complexity, the description does not sufficiently prepare an agent to call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies 'id' as a path parameter and 'body' as the payload, but these mirror the schema's field names without adding meaning. It does not explain that 'id' references the specific RemotePathMapping to update, nor does it describe expected body structure beyond telling the user to consult GET or /schema. This is minimal semantic value, falling short of the required compensation.

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 RemotePathMapping' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from create (create_remotepathmapping) and delete (delete_remotepathmapping_by_id) siblings. It is concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't elaborate on the update's scope or effects.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the name and HTTP method, but does not state prerequisites (e.g., the mapping must exist) or when to prefer GET/delete. The only usage hint is 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first', which relates to constructing the body, not to tool selection.

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