game_center_achievements_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 behavioral burden. It signals a mutating PATCH and defers the payload to an external OpenAPI schema, but says nothing about required permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, reversibility, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 text is short and front-loads the endpoint, but the route is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than useful content. Size is appropriate, but the content density is very low.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested free-form body object, the description is essentially a route string. Pointing to an external OpenAPI schema for the JSON:API envelope does not give the agent actionable inline guidance about what to send.

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 the id and body parameters are already documented in the schema. The description merely repeats the same components.schemas reference the schema already contains, adding no new meaning beyond the structured fields. 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 PATCH route implies a partial update of a Game Center achievement v2 resource, so the verb+resource is inferable from the URL. However, the description only restates the endpoint already encoded in the tool name and never explains in prose what an update does or how v2 differs from the sibling game_center_achievements_update_instance (v1). It is adequate but not self-explanatory.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives, despite the presence of a v1 update sibling and separate create/get/delete siblings for the same resource. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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