game_center_achievement_images_v2_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 implies a mutation via PATCH but says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, what fields are mutable, reversibility, or side effects. The only useful disclosure is a pointer to the OpenAPI request schema for the body, which is thin for a mutation tool.

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 first sentence duplicates itself verbatim ('PATCH /v2/gameCenterAchievementImages/{id} (PATCH /v2/gameCenterAchievementImages/{id})'), which is pure waste. It is short, but the redundancy means it is not efficient.

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 is inadequate. It never explains what an achievement image update entails or which attributes can change, relying entirely on an external OpenAPI lookup the agent cannot perform.

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 two required params (id, body) both documented in the schema. The description restates the body shape reference already present in the schema description, so it adds only marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 conveys a PATCH (update) on the gameCenterAchievementImages v2 resource scoped by {id}, so the operation is inferable. However, it is presented as a raw HTTP path rather than a plain-language statement of purpose, and it adds little over the tool name itself. It does not distinguish this from the closely named game_center_achievement_images_update_instance (v1) sibling.

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 on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or how it relates to the v1 update sibling or to the localizations/relationships tools. The description provides no routing context at all.

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