game_center_leaderboard_set_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 burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about what fields can be modified, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response looks like. The only content beyond the path is a pointer to an OpenAPI schema the agent cannot read, which is minimal transparency.

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 text is short, but the PATCH path is duplicated verbatim inside parentheses, which is pure waste, and the useful information (a schema pointer) is buried. Front-loading is acceptable but the redundancy costs it.

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, no output schema, and a nested JSON:API envelope body, the description is far too thin. Delegating the body contract to an OpenAPI component the agent cannot access leaves the invocation under-specified.

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 parameters (id, body) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond restating the body shape reference already present in 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 effectively restates the HTTP verb and resource path (PATCH /v2/gameCenterLeaderboardSetImages/{id}), which does convey that this modifies a Game Center leaderboard set image. However, it offers no plain-language statement of intent and no differentiation from the many sibling v2 image tools (create/get/delete). It is identifiable but not illuminating.

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 update tool versus create, get, or delete counterparts, and no mention of prerequisites such as required permissions or resource state. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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