game_center_leaderboards_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. It discloses deprecation and that PATCH implies a partial update, but says nothing about required permissions, whether changes are reversible, or which fields are mutable. It also defers body semantics to an external OpenAPI document the agent may not have.

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 deprecation warning, but wastes space by restating the same endpoint path twice in parentheses. The remaining sentence is a pointer rather than useful content.

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 definition is thin. The critical JSON:API envelope shape is pushed entirely to an external OpenAPI document, so an agent cannot construct the body from the tool definition alone.

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 baseline is 3. The description merely points to the same components.schemas.GameCenterLeaderboardUpdateRequest that the body parameter's schema description already references, adding no new meaning about the id or body parameters.

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 only gives an HTTP method and path (PATCH /v1/gameCenterLeaderboards/{id}), leaving the agent to infer that it updates a leaderboard instance. It does not state the operation in prose and gives no differentiation from the sibling game_center_leaderboards_v2_update_instance. The [DEPRECATED] tag is the only added signal.

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 implies 'prefer the newer version', but the description never names the alternative (e.g. the v2 update tool) or states when to use this one. No prerequisites or context are given.

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