game_center_achievements_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 only that this is a PATCH and that the body is a JSON:API envelope referencing GameCenterAchievementUpdateRequest; it says nothing about permissions, side effects on published state, or reversibility of the mutation.

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 a single compact line with the deprecation flag front-loaded and a useful pointer to the schema, though the duplicated PATCH path restatement is redundant.

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 nested-body mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the update affects and how to construct the body. Instead it defers entirely to an external OpenAPI schema reference, leaving an agent without enough to invoke the tool 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 the schema already covers both parameters. The description merely repeats the pointer to components.schemas.GameCenterAchievementUpdateRequest for the body, adding no field-level meaning beyond what the schema states.

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 the verb (PATCH) and resource (gameCenterAchievements/{id}) and flags the tool as deprecated, so an agent can infer it updates a Game Center achievement. But it never states in plain terms what is being changed and does not point to the likely replacement (game_center_achievements_v2_update_instance), leaving the purpose only implied.

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 hints the tool should be avoided, but no alternative is named, even though game_center_achievements_v2_update_instance exists among the siblings. There is no statement of when to use this versus the v2 variant or any prerequisite.

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