game_center_achievement_images_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 burden. It discloses the HTTP mutation method and deprecation lifecycle status, but says nothing about permissions, whether the update replaces or merges existing image data, or what the response looks like.

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 and front-loads the deprecation warning, but it redundantly repeats the same endpoint path twice in parentheses, which is wasted space. Most of the text is a pointer rather than 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 deprecated mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description at least points to the OpenAPI schema that defines the nested JSON:API body, which is the main complexity. It still omits return behavior, permissions, and an explicit successor tool, leaving gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with 2 parameters, so the schema already documents id and body. The description adds the exact OpenAPI component name for the body envelope, which is marginally useful, but no field-level semantics beyond that; 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 names a specific verb and resource via the PATCH /v1/gameCenterAchievementImages/{id} endpoint, so an agent knows this updates a Game Center achievement image instance. The [DEPRECATED] marker also implicitly distinguishes it from the v2 sibling, though it never states the relationship in plain language.

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?

The [DEPRECATED] tag signals when not to use this tool, which is real guidance, but no alternative is named explicitly and there is no statement of prerequisites or conditions for legitimate use. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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