game_center_leaderboard_sets_update_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the deprecation status (a genuine behavioral trait) and points at the request body schema, but says nothing about required permissions, mutation effects, reversibility, or the intended migration path.

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 PATCH route is duplicated verbatim in parentheses and the final clause is a dangling pointer to an external schema. Front-loading the deprecation tag is good, yet the redundancy means not every token earns 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 deprecated mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits the replacement tool, any auth/permission notes, and defers the entire body contract to an out-of-band OpenAPI document the agent may not have.

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; the baseline of 3 applies. The description only echoes the body schema name (GameCenterLeaderboardSetUpdateRequest) without adding format or envelope details 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 HTTP verb plus resource path (PATCH /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardSets/{id}) does convey that this updates a Game Center leaderboard set, and the [DEPRECATED] tag is informative. However, the action is restated via a raw URL rather than a verb+resource phrase, and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the sibling game_center_leaderboard_sets_v2_update_instance, which is the critical distinction here.

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 description offers no when-to-use guidance and never names the v2 replacement, even though deprecation makes routing to an alternative the single most important usage question. An agent learns the tool is deprecated but not what to do instead.

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