in_app_purchase_images_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, and it delivers almost none. The PATCH verb implies a partial mutation, but the description never states what gets modified, whether the change is reversible, what happens to omitted fields, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. Pointing at the OpenAPI component is a pointer, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 single sentence is short but wasteful: the path is duplicated verbatim inside parentheses ('PATCH /v1/inAppPurchaseImages/{id} (PATCH /v1/inAppPurchaseImages/{id})'), which is pure redundancy. Nothing is front-loaded as usable guidance, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested JSON:API body whose real shape lives in an external OpenAPI document. For that complexity the description should at least state the effect of the update and the envelope requirement; instead it delegates everything to an external reference, leaving the agent without enough context to call it confidently.

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 schema already documents both 'id' and 'body', and the description's body-shape note ('components.schemas.InAppPurchaseImageUpdateRequest') merely repeats the schema's own description text. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting; the description contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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 is essentially the raw endpoint string ('PATCH /v1/inAppPurchaseImages/{id}') restated verbatim, with no natural-language statement of what the tool does. An agent can infer 'update an in-app purchase image' from the path plus the tool name, but the description itself adds nothing beyond restating the identifier. It also gives no differentiation from sibling update tools like in_app_purchase_images_v2_update_instance or subscription_images_update_instance.

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 tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (v1 vs v2 image update). No prerequisites, no mention of required permissions or the parent resource context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and path.

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