android_to_ios_app_mapping_details_update_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the verb and path. It hints at a JSON:API envelope requirement for the body, which is mild useful context, but omits partial-update semantics (what happens to omitted fields), auth/permission requirements, error behavior, and any destructive or irreversible effects.

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 short and front-loads the operation, which is good, but the path is redundantly repeated in parentheses and the sentence spends its budget pointing at a schema component rather than adding meaning.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should clarify what gets modified, partial-update behavior, and requirements. Instead it defers entirely to an external OpenAPI component reference the agent may not be able to resolve, leaving the update semantics underspecified.

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 100%, so both parameters (id and body) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only that the body follows a JSON:API envelope and references the same components.schemas component the schema already points to, so it adds essentially nothing beyond structured data.

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 names the operation via the HTTP verb PATCH and the resource path /v1/androidToIosAppMappingDetails/{id}, so an agent can infer 'update an existing Android-to-iOS app mapping detail'. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no explanation of what the mapping detail represents or what can be updated, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling create/get/delete instance tools beyond the verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or required permissions, and no reference to the sibling create/get/delete tools for the same resource. The agent is left to infer that PATCH means partial update and that an existing id is required.

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