http_patch

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any side effects, potential destructive nature, or special behavior of the request (e.g., whether it modifies resources). It only states the action, leaving behavioral transparency minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core functionality efficiently.

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 has 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the response contains, whether content is stored, or any error/redirect behavior. The minimal information may leave agents uncertain about expected outcomes beyond making the request.

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 schema covers all 15 parameters with basic descriptions (e.g., 'URL to send the request to'), achieving 100% coverage. However, the descriptions are terse and do not clarify distinctions between overlapping fields like auth, basic_auth, and bearer_auth beyond their obvious names. The baseline score of 3 applies because schema coverage is complete, but no added meaning is provided.

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 it makes an HTTP PATCH request to a specified URL, which is a specific verb and resource. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like http_get, http_post, etc., making its purpose 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?

While it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives, the HTTP method name itself implies its use case (e.g., partial updates). The context of sibling tools with different HTTP verbs provides implicit guidance, which is sufficient for straightforward selection.

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