in_app_purchase_images_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. The PATCH verb implies a partial mutation, but the description says nothing about required permissions, whether the update is reversible, what happens to omitted fields, or whether a JSON:API envelope is mandatory rather than optional. It only points at an external schema.

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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with the method and path, so nothing is buried. The parenthetical duplicate of the same PATCH path is redundant filler, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 description is thin: it never states which fields the update accepts, that a JSON:API envelope is required, or any side effects. Pointing at an external OpenAPI schema is not enough to let an agent call it correctly without further lookup.

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, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only a pointer to the OpenAPI components.schemas.InAppPurchaseImageV2UpdateRequest shape for the body, which is marginally useful but no syntax or field-level detail 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 description gives the HTTP verb (PATCH) and the resource path (/v2/inAppPurchaseImages/{id}), which does identify an update operation on an in-app-purchase image. However it is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus a URL, and it never distinguishes this v2 update from close siblings like in_app_purchase_images_update_instance (v1), in_app_purchase_images_v2_create_instance, or in_app_purchase_images_v2_delete_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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent gets no signal about when this v2 update should be chosen over the v1 update or the create/delete siblings, which is exactly the ambiguity this field is meant to resolve.

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