game_center_activity_versions_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, and it discloses nothing: not whether PATCH applies a partial update, which fields are mutable, what permissions are required, whether the change is reversible, or what happens to omitted fields. Pointing at an OpenAPI component is not behavioral disclosure.

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?

Very short, but structurally poor: the same PATCH path is duplicated verbatim inside parentheses, and the remaining text is a cross-reference rather than a front-loaded purpose. The brevity reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, a nested JSON:API body, and a description that only names the endpoint is materially incomplete. An agent gets no information about what updating this resource actually entails.

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 documents both 'id' and 'body'. The description only repeats the schema pointer ('see OpenAPI components.schemas.GameCenterActivityVersionUpdateRequest') and adds no syntax, format, or body-field meaning beyond it, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 raw endpoint 'PATCH /v1/gameCenterActivityVersions/{id}' does imply updating a Game Center activity version, so the verb and resource are technically identifiable. But it is expressed as an HTTP path rather than a purpose statement, and it makes no attempt to distinguish this tool from siblings like game_center_activity_versions_create_instance or game_center_activity_versions_get_instance.

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, what state the target resource must be in, when an alternative (create/get/delete) is preferred, or any prerequisite. The description is purely an endpoint and a schema pointer.

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