app_clip_advanced_experience_images_update_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: not whether PATCH is partial or full replacement, whether the operation requires auth scopes, whether it is destructive/irreversible, or what happens to unspecified fields. The only behavioral hint is the PATCH method itself, which is already in the tool name.

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?

It is short, but the parenthetical duplicates the exact same endpoint string, which is pure waste. The one substantive sentence only points at an external OpenAPI schema, so the text is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque JSON:API body (additionalProperties with no defined fields), the description should explain the envelope shape or permissions needed. Instead it defers entirely to an external schema and leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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% for both params (id and body), so the baseline is 3. However the description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the components.schemas reference already present in the body's schema description, giving no field-level detail to compensate for the opaque additionalProperties body.

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 merely restates the HTTP verb and path (PATCH /v1/appClipAdvancedExperienceImages/{id}) and even duplicates that string verbatim in parentheses. It conveys no business meaning about what an 'advanced experience image' is or what updating it entails. It is essentially a tautological restatement of the endpoint rather than a purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like app_clip_advanced_experience_images_create_instance or app_clip_advanced_experiences_update_instance. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context are given. The name implies an update operation, but the description supplies no usage direction at all.

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