game_center_details_update_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, whether this is a full replace or partial update, permission requirements, or reversibility. Referencing the OpenAPI schema is a pointer, 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?

The sentence is short but wasteful: the 'PATCH /v1/gameCenterDetails/{id}' string is printed twice in a parenthetical that adds no information. It is front-loaded with an endpoint literal rather than a purpose statement.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested, free-form JSON:API body object (additionalProperties), no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needed to explain the envelope and update semantics. Instead it defers entirely to OpenAPI, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call.

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 id and body parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only points at the OpenAPI component name for the body shape and adds no extra semantic meaning. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 only restates the HTTP endpoint 'PATCH /v1/gameCenterDetails/{id}', effectively echoing the tool name rather than explaining what the tool actually does in domain terms. It does not clarify what a 'Game Center detail' is nor distinguish it from siblings like game_center_details_create_instance, game_center_details_get_instance, or game_center_detail_players_update_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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of required scopes or state a resource must be in. The agent is left to infer everything from the name and the raw URL.

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