beta_app_clip_invocations_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. It discloses nothing about permissions, side effects, reversibility, idempotency, or what happens to unspecified fields; 'PATCH' is the only signal, and it is already implied by the name.

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-loaded, but the endpoint is printed twice in parentheses ('(PATCH /v1/betaAppClipInvocations/{id})'), which is pure noise, and the single remaining sentence delegates everything to an external spec.

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 nested JSON:API body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should say more about effects and requirements. Pointing at the OpenAPI component is the only useful content, and it duplicates the schema.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to components.schemas.BetaAppClipInvocationUpdateRequest merely repeats the body parameter's own schema description rather than adding 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 is essentially the HTTP method and path restated, and the tool name already encodes 'update_instance' for beta app clip invocations. It adds no domain meaning about what is actually being updated or why, making it close to a tautology rather than a statement of purpose.

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 guidance at all. With dozens of sibling *_update_instance and *_create_instance tools, the agent gets nothing to distinguish this call from the other beta-app-clip endpoints.

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