game_center_leaderboards_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 almost nothing: no permissions required, no side effects, no note on which fields are mutable or whether omitted fields are preserved. Only the PATCH verb weakly implies a partial update.

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 route, but the endpoint is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, which is redundant filler rather than added information.

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 nested body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It defers the entire payload shape to an external OpenAPI component that the agent may not have access to, and explains nothing about the effect of the update or its result.

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 the id and body parameters are already documented structurally, and baseline is 3. The description adds a useful pointer to the OpenAPI schema component for the body envelope, but gives no field-level semantics for the update payload.

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 gives the HTTP verb and resource route (PATCH /v2/gameCenterLeaderboards/{id}), from which an update operation can be inferred, but it never states in plain terms what the tool does. It leans on the route instead of a verb+resource phrase, and the parenthetical repeat adds no differentiation from the many sibling update 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_center_leaderboards_v2_get_instance, game_center_leaderboards_v2_delete_instance, or the v1 update sibling. The verb PATCH is the only signal, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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