app_event_localizations_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, and it discloses almost nothing. The PATCH method implies a partial-update mutation, but there is no mention of auth requirements, which fields are patchable, side effects, or reversibility. Pointing at an external OpenAPI schema is a pointer, not disclosure.

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 duplicates the same PATCH path twice in parentheses, which is pure waste, and then repeats the schema reference already present in the input schema. It is short but not efficient, and nothing is front-loaded that helps selection.

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 description should explain what the update body contains and what the envelope requires. Instead it defers entirely to an external OpenAPI component, leaving the agent without the information needed to construct a correct PATCH body.

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 parameters, so the schema already documents id and body. The description's only addition is directing the agent to components.schemas.AppEventLocalizationUpdateRequest, which the body schema already references. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource via the raw HTTP signature (PATCH /v1/appEventLocalizations/{id}), so an agent can infer it updates an app event localization. However, it offers no semantic framing beyond the URL and does not distinguish this from sibling tools like app_event_localizations_create_instance, get_instance, or delete_instance.

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, what prerequisites exist, or which alternative to pick (create vs. update vs. delete). The description is purely a method-and-path restatement with no usage context at all.

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