age_rating_declarations__update

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not explain whether this is a partial update (leaving unspecified fields unchanged), how null values are handled, or any side effects. The terse description relies on inference from the PATCH method, which may not be obvious to an AI agent.

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 description is a single sentence plus an endpoint reference, front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no unnecessary information, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.

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?

Given the complexity of the update (a nested body with many optional attributes), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the partial update semantics, how to obtain the ID, or what to expect in the response. While the schema provides field details, the lack of operational workflow guidance makes the tool difficult to use correctly without additional context.

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?

Both top-level parameters have schema descriptions: the id mentions 'ID from the matching list call' and the body is described as a 'JSON:API request body (Apple schema: AgeRatingDeclarationUpdateRequest).' Since schema coverage is 100% and the nested structure is detailed, the description does not need to add much. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('an age rating declaration'), and includes the specific HTTP method and endpoint (PATCH /v1/ageRatingDeclarations/{id}). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as the GET operation for the same resource and other 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention which list or get call to use first, although the schema hints that the ID comes from a 'matching list call.' There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to other age rating declaration operations.

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