app_store_review_attachments_update_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about what the PATCH mutates, whether changes are reversible, what permissions/scopes are required, or what happens to fields left out of the body. The only sliver of value is naming the request envelope (JSON:API), which is 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 text is short, but the PATCH route string is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, wasting the one line of content, and it is front-loaded with a route rather than a purpose statement. Efficient in length but not in substance.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested JSON:API body, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do more work. Beyond pointing at an external OpenAPI schema it explains nothing about the update operation or its body, leaving the agent without enough to invoke 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 schema already documents both parameters (id and body), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds a pointer to components.schemas.AppStoreReviewAttachmentUpdateRequest for the full envelope, which is mildly useful but does not clarify any individual field's meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 tool name as a REST route ('PATCH /v1/appStoreReviewAttachments/{id}'), which is essentially a tautology of the identifier app_store_review_attachments_update_instance. It never states in plain language what an update to this resource actually changes, and it does nothing to separate itself from the sibling create/get/delete attachment tools.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus app_store_review_attachments_create_instance, _get_instance, or _delete_instance, nor any prerequisites or preconditions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the method name.

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