app_clip_advanced_experiences_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 burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether PATCH is partial or full replacement, not which fields are mutable, not permission/auth requirements, not whether the change is reversible. Pointing at an external OpenAPI component is not behavioral disclosure the agent can act on.

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 path is duplicated verbatim inside parentheses, which is pure waste rather than conciseness. The single substantive cue (the body schema reference) is buried after the redundant restatement.

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, no output schema, and a nested free-form body object, the description should explain the update semantics and envelope. Instead it defers to an OpenAPI document the agent likely cannot retrieve, leaving the operation under-specified.

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 the id and body parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only a pointer to the AppClipAdvancedExperienceUpdateRequest schema name, naming the envelope but adding no field-level meaning.

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 restates the HTTP verb and path (PATCH /v1/appClipAdvancedExperiences/{id}) rather than describing the operation in human terms. An agent can infer 'update an app clip advanced experience' only by decoding the endpoint, and nothing distinguishes this from the sibling app_clip_advanced_experiences_get_instance or create_instance beyond the method token.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many app_clip_advanced_experience* siblings. The agent is left to infer everything from the HTTP verb.

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