app_info_localizations_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: not whether PATCH merges or replaces fields, what happens to unspecified attributes, what permissions are required, or what is returned. It states only the route.

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 sentence is short but wastes its one line by duplicating the same endpoint twice in parentheses ('(PATCH /v1/appInfoLocalizations/{id})'), and it is not front-loaded with a purpose statement — the verb+resource are all an agent gets.

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 free-form required body object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum characterize the updatable fields or the JSON:API envelope. Instead it defers entirely to an external OpenAPI reference the agent may not have access to, leaving the definition incomplete.

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% (both id and body are described), so the baseline of 3 applies. However, the description's body note merely repeats the schema's own pointer to components.schemas.AppInfoLocalizationUpdateRequest, adding no semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 only restates the HTTP verb and path ('PATCH /v1/appInfoLocalizations/{id}'), which is close to a tautology of the tool name. It never says what an App Info localization actually is or what the update affects, and it does nothing to distinguish this from app_info_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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among the many localization siblings. The only implicit signal is that PATCH implies modifying an existing resource, which an agent must infer rather than being told.

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