game_center_app_versions_update_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the HTTP verb and points to an external OpenAPI schema, revealing nothing about permissions required, what fields are mutable, whether the update is partial (PATCH implies this but is not explained), or 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?

The description is short but wastes space by repeating the identical PATCH path twice in parentheses. The remaining content is a bare reference to an external schema, leaving the description under-informative rather than concise.

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 and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what a caller can update, what the response will be, or how the operation behaves beyond the HTTP method.

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% (both id and body have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description's note about the body shape duplicates what is already in the schema and adds no extra semantic detail.

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 restates the HTTP method and path ('PATCH /v1/gameCenterAppVersions/{id}') which the tool name already conveys. It does not describe in business terms what a Game Center app version update entails or distinguish it from sibling update tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_instance, get_instance). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about partial vs. full updates.

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