game_center_leaderboard_images_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. The deprecation notice is genuinely useful behavioral information, but it says nothing about what fields can be changed, whether the update is partial or full replacement, what permissions are required, or what happens to unmentioned attributes.

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?

A single sentence, but the PATCH path is printed twice in immediate succession, wasting space that could have been spent on when-not-to-use guidance. Front-loading the deprecation notice is good structure.

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 an update tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a free-form body object (additionalProperties: {}), the description delegates all body knowledge to an external OpenAPI schema the agent may not have access to. Combined with no migration guidance for a deprecated endpoint, the definition leaves real gaps.

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 both params (id, body) are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's only added parameter context is a pointer to components.schemas.GameCenterLeaderboardImageUpdateRequest, which is a reference to an external document rather than inline semantics.

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 identifies the operation as PATCH on /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardImages/{id}, which implies updating a leaderboard image resource by ID, and the [DEPRECATED] tag distinguishes it from the active siblings. However, it never states in plain language what the update does, and the leading path is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, so differentiation from game_center_leaderboard_images_v2_update_instance relies on the agent noticing 'v2' rather than on any stated difference.

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 only usage signal is [DEPRECATED], which implies avoidance but names no alternative. Given that game_center_leaderboard_images_v2_update_instance exists as a sibling, the description should have pointed there; instead the agent must infer the migration path.

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