game_center_achievements_activity_update_to_one_relationship

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only conveys that this is a PATCH (a mutation) and that it is deprecated. It does not disclose that a to-one relationship PATCH replaces the existing linkage, what permissions are required, or any side effects.

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 a single sentence and front-loads the important DEPRECATED warning, but the path is duplicated parenthetically, which is pure waste. Structurally adequate but 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 on a nested body object with no annotations and no output schema, the description punts the body contract entirely to an external OpenAPI component and never explains what the update accomplishes or what the envelope must contain. An agent gets no self-contained basis for calling it correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only points at components.schemas.GameCenterAchievementActivityLinkageRequest, which the schema itself already references. Baseline 3 applies since it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 concrete HTTP verb and full resource path (PATCH /v1/gameCenterAchievements/{id}/relationships/activity), so an agent can tell it is a to-one relationship update. However, it never states in domain terms that this updates the achievement's linked activity, and the parenthetical simply repeats the path verbatim. The DEPRECATED tag is the only signal distinguishing it from the v2 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?

The [DEPRECATED] marker implies the tool should be avoided, but the description never says so explicitly nor names the replacement (e.g. game_center_achievements_v2_activity_update_to_one_relationship). No when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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