app_previews_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 side effects, required permissions, partial-update semantics, or whether unspecified fields are cleared. The only substantive content is a pointer to the OpenAPI components.schemas.AppPreviewUpdateRequest, which is a schema reference, not behavioral 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 is short but wastes its entire budget: the path is printed twice in adjacent parentheses, and the only other sentence defers to an external schema. No sentence adds usable information, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than concision.

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 nested body objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It neither explains what an AppPreview update can change nor describes the JSON:API envelope it defers to, leaving the agent dependent on out-of-band OpenAPI knowledge to call the tool 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% (both id and body are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to the OpenAPI schema for the body envelope is a useful cross-reference but largely repeats what the body parameter's schema description already states, adding no new meaning.

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 method and path ("PATCH /v1/appPreviews/{id}"), which duplicates the tool name rather than describing the action in plain language. An agent can infer 'update an app preview' from the path, but the text adds no verb+resource statement and does nothing to distinguish it from sibling update_instance tools like app_previews_get_instance or app_previews_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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. With app_previews_create_instance, app_previews_get_instance, and app_previews_delete_instance among the siblings, the description offers no signal about when an update is the right operation versus reading or deleting.

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