app_clip_header_images_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 of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals almost nothing: no permissions required, no mention of whether changes are partial or full replacement, no side effects, and no idempotency notes. Only the JSON:API envelope expectation is hinted at, which is minimal for a mutation endpoint.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded with the endpoint, but the parenthetical repeats the exact same path twice and adds no information. It avoids padding by omission rather than by useful density.

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 endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested JSON:API body, the description should explain the update semantics, required fields, and side effects. Pointing vaguely at an external OpenAPI component leaves the agent without the context needed to call it correctly.

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 id and body are already documented in the schema; the description's pointer to components.schemas.AppClipHeaderImageUpdateRequest duplicates the schema's own body description verbatim. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 method and path (PATCH /v1/appClipHeaderImages/{id}) that the tool name already conveys, without explaining what an app clip header image is or what an update does to it. It is essentially a tautology of the name/endpoint rather than a statement of purpose.

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_header_images_create_instance, get_instance, or delete_instance, and no prerequisites or context are given. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and HTTP verb.

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