game_center_leaderboard_set_localizations_update_instance

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a PATCH (mutation) and that it is deprecated, which is useful, but says nothing about auth requirements, what fields are replaced vs preserved, reversibility, or side effects.

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 entry is short and leads with the important DEPRECATED flag, but the endpoint path is duplicated verbatim inside the parentheses, which is pure noise, and the body-shape pointer is a circular reference to the schema.

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 deprecated, potentially destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: the request body shape is deferred to an external OpenAPI component rather than summarized, and no behavior about the update is given. Only the deprecation status makes it actionable at all.

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 there are only two parameters, so the schema already documents 'id' and 'body'. The description only points back to the same OpenAPI component the schema already references, adding no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a verb (PATCH) and a resource (gameCenterLeaderboardSetLocalizations/{id}), so an agent can infer this mutates a localization by id. But it is a machine-oriented method+path string rather than a plain statement of what is being updated, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the equally named v2 sibling or the create/get/delete instance tools.

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] marker is a real routing signal, but the description names no replacement and gives no condition for choosing this tool over game_center_leaderboard_set_localizations_v2_update_instance or any other sibling. An agent is left to guess what to use instead.

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