app_event_screenshots_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-disclosure burden. It only reveals that this is a PATCH operation and points to an external schema; it does not explain permissions, partial-update semantics, side effects, what happens to omitted fields, or the response.

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, but the endpoint is duplicated in parentheses, which is wasted text. It is front-loaded with the endpoint, but the repetition and external schema pointer make it less efficient than it could be.

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 a nested body object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It delegates the actual body shape to an external OpenAPI schema that is not included and does not describe behavior or return values, leaving an agent with insufficient context to call 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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond repeating that the body shape is defined by an external OpenAPI schema reference, which is the baseline expected when 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 identifies an HTTP PATCH endpoint for an app event screenshot, so one can infer that it updates a screenshot. However, it reads as raw routing information rather than a clear tool purpose, and it does not differentiate the action from sibling tools such as create, delete, or get_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 update tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The description provides no usage context beyond the endpoint itself.

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