app_clip_default_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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, whether the update is partial or full replacement of the JSON:API envelope, reversibility, or side effects on related resources. The only added context is a pointer to the OpenAPI request schema, which is structural rather than behavioral.

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-loaded with the endpoint, but it redundantly repeats the same PATCH path twice in the first clause, which is noise. Beyond the endpoint and schema pointer there is no further content to assess.

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 a nested JSON:API body, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the envelope structure or update semantics; instead it defers entirely to an external OpenAPI component, which is not resolvable from the tool definition alone.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (id and body) are described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by naming the OpenAPI component for the body shape, which matches the schema description but does not add format or constraint detail.

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 conveys a specific verb (PATCH) against a specific resource (appClipDefaultExperiences), so an agent can infer 'update an App Clip default experience.' However, it never states the purpose in plain language and does not distinguish itself from the many sibling operations on the same resource (get_instance, delete_instance, create_instance), relying entirely on the HTTP endpoint string.

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 update versus create/get/delete siblings, no prerequisites, and no mention of what state the resource must be in. The description consists solely of the endpoint path and a pointer to the request schema, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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