Update an existing component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states partial-update semantics, so an agent knows omitted fields are preserved, and it exposes the NOT_FOUND failure mode for missing ids. It does not describe return values, auth, or validation effects, but the core PATCH contract is sufficiently transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The operation and target are front-loaded, the patch semantics follow immediately, and the error behavior plus alternative tool are condensed into the final clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a large nested input schema, the description supplies the key facts needed for selection and invocation: it is a partial update, id is required, and missing ids are an error with a known alternative. It could be more complete by mentioning relationships to registry_update_rules or registry_deprecate_component, but the current description plus rich schema is enough for an agent to call it correctly in the common case.

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 zero description coverage and 13 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds the most important parameter-level semantic: only provided fields are changed, and omitted fields are left untouched. This generalizes across all 12 optional parameters. It does not explain nested partial-object behavior, such as partially specifying the rules object, but the schema still provides types, required fields, and defaults.

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 opening sentence, 'Patch an existing component by id', gives a specific verb, resource, and selection mechanism in one line. The closing clause explicitly distinguishes it from registry_create_component, so an agent can immediately separate update from create without deeper inference.

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 a concrete routing rule: if the id does not exist, the call will fail with NOT_FOUND and the agent should use registry_create_component instead. It does not address every sibling overlap, such as when to use registry_update_rules or registry_deprecate_component for component subfields, but the main create-vs-update decision is clearly stated.

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