game_center_leaderboard_localizations_update_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether this is a full or partial overwrite, what auth scope is required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to unchanged fields. The only behavioral hint is 'PATCH', which implies partial update but is not explained.

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 short, but the duplicated route text '(PATCH /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardLocalizations/{id})' is redundant filler, and the description defers the actual body shape to an external OpenAPI reference the agent may not have. The DEPRECATED flag is correctly front-loaded, but the rest does not fully earn its place.

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, this is under-specified: it provides neither permissions, side-effect, nor replacement guidance, and the only substantive detail is an external schema pointer. An agent could invoke it mechanically but lacks the context to do so safely or to choose it over the v2 sibling.

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' adequately, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds the specific OpenAPI component name for the body envelope, which is marginally helpful, but it adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource (GameCenterLeaderboardLocalizations) and the operation via the PATCH route, with a DEPRECATED marker. However, it restates the HTTP path verbatim (twice) rather than describing the semantic effect on a leaderboard localization, and it never distinguishes itself from the many sibling/localization update tools (e.g. the v2 variant). Purpose is inferable but not clearly articulated.

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 '[DEPRECATED]' prefix implicitly signals when NOT to use this tool, which is genuinely useful usage context. But it stops short of naming the replacement (the v2 update tool is present among siblings), leaving the agent to guess. No prerequisites or conditions for use are stated.

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