game_center_leaderboard_localizations_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, yet it discloses nothing: not whether this is a partial or full replacement update, what fields are mutable, whether it requires auth/role, or what happens on conflicting state. A reference to an external OpenAPI schema is 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?

It is short and front-loads the endpoint, but the parenthetical '(PATCH /v2/gameCenterLeaderboardLocalizations/{id})' is a verbatim duplicate of the preceding text, wasting the brief space it has. Nothing else is padded, but the duplication suggests carelessness in a very short string.

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 too thin: it omits auth requirements, update semantics, and any indication of the resource being localized. The one useful element, the pointer to the request body schema, is already present in the input schema.

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 both 'id' and 'body' are already documented in the schema, warranting the baseline of 3. The description only repeats the pointer to components.schemas.GameCenterLeaderboardLocalizationV2UpdateRequest that the schema already contains, adding no extra parameter meaning.

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 is essentially the tool name rendered as a URI: 'PATCH /v2/gameCenterLeaderboardLocalizations/{id}'. It conveys the verb and resource only in endpoint form, adds no natural-language statement of what is being changed, and does not differentiate itself from the many sibling update_instance tools. This is a restatement of the name rather than an explanation.

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 when-to-use guidance whatsoever. It never mentions when to call update vs create_instance, get_instance, or delete_instance for leaderboard localizations, nor any prerequisites such as required state or permissions. An agent learns nothing about selection beyond inferring PATCH means update.

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