game_center_leaderboard_images_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 only conveys that this is a PATCH (implying partial update) and points to an OpenAPI schema for the body envelope; it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, what fields get modified, or the JSON:API mutation semantics.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but it wastes space by duplicating the PATCH path verbatim in parentheses and leans on an external schema reference rather than stating anything actionable.

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 a nested body object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits return behavior, partial-update semantics, required permissions, and any indication of what the body should contain beyond a schema name.

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 the id and body parameters. The description adds a reference to the GameCenterLeaderboardImageV2UpdateRequest component for the body envelope shape, which is marginally helpful but largely redundant with the schema's own body description.

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 states the HTTP verb and resource path (PATCH /v2/gameCenterLeaderboardImages/{id}), which conveys that this updates a Game Center leaderboard image v2 resource. However, it is essentially a restatement of the name/endpoint with no differentiation from the many sibling update tools (e.g. game_center_leaderboard_set_images_v2_update_instance, game_center_leaderboard_images_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the endpoint path.

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