pixelblaze_update_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Replace the JavaScript source code' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether other pattern properties are preserved, if there are auth requirements, or if the operation is reversible). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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: a single sentence stating the action, followed by a bullet list of parameter descriptions. Every element adds value with no redundancy. The key action is 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, the description's note 'Returns a confirmation message.' is adequate. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, additional context about error cases (e.g., pattern not found) or idempotency would enhance completeness. Still, basic expectations are met.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description adds concise meanings for both parameters: 'pattern_id: The ID of the pattern to update' and 'code: New PixelBlaze JavaScript source code.' This provides essential context beyond the schema titles.

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 uses the specific verb 'Replace' with the resource 'JavaScript source code of an existing pattern', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pixelblaze_create_pattern (create new) and pixelblaze_delete_pattern (remove). The action 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?

The description implies usage for updating existing patterns but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus creating a new pattern or deleting/recreating. No alternative tools or conditionals are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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