Update a tool application

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the HTTP method (PATCH) and authorization class ('board'), but does not clarify whether the update is partial or full, nor any side effects like cascading status changes. Behavioral traits are minimally disclosed.

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 very concise (two lines) and front-loads the purpose. However, it omits essential details, making it too sparse. It earns its place but lacks depth.

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 tool's complexity (many optional body fields, nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the response, partial update behavior, or constraints (e.g., can 'type' be changed after creation?). The description could be more helpful.

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%, and the description does not explain any parameter. The agent must deduce from names like 'applicationId' and 'body' properties. This is insufficient for correct parameter usage, especially for fields like 'pluginId' or 'ownerUserId' that have nullable 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 clearly states the tool updates a tool application, which distinguishes it from creation (pc_post_companies_by_company_id_tools_applications) and deletion (pc_delete_tool_applications_by_application_id) siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools, but the name and title are sufficient.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, or contexts where updating is appropriate instead of recreating or deleting. The user must infer from the schema and general knowledge.

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