apps_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. The PATCH verb implies a partial mutation, and pointing to components.schemas.AppUpdateRequest is a mild aid, but it says nothing about permissions required, which fields are mutable, reversibility, or what the response contains.

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?

It is short and front-loads the HTTP method, but the parenthetical repeats the same route verbatim, which is wasted text, and brevity comes at the cost of real information.

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 defers all substantive meaning to an external OpenAPI document that the agent may not have access to.

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 id and body parameters are already documented in the schema (including the AppUpdateRequest reference). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is essentially a restated HTTP route ("PATCH /v1/apps/{id}") rather than a statement of what the tool does. An agent can infer an app-record update from the verb-in-path, but no human-readable purpose, scope, or affected resource is given, and it is not differentiated from the many sibling *_update_instance 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as apps_get_instance (read), apps_get_collection, or other update tools. The agent is left to guess entirely.

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