Update an Android-to-iOS app mapping detail using its ID and a JSON body to change the package name or certificate fingerprints.
Update an android to iOS app mapping detail. [PATCH /v1/androidToIosAppMappingDetails/{id}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID from the matching list call. | |
| body | Yes | JSON:API request body (Apple schema: AndroidToIosAppMappingDetailUpdateRequest). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID from the matching list call."v2.0.0Input schema / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Resource identifier."v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already convey. Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive, but the description does not clarify partial update semantics, return values, or any side effects. It merely restates the update action.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the endpoint. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.
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?
The description, when combined with the detailed JSON:API schema and annotations, is adequate for basic usage. However, it lacks information about the update behavior (e.g., whether omitted attributes are preserved or cleared), potential error conditions, and expected response. These are not covered by annotations or an output schema, so the description is not fully complete.
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%: both parameters (id, body) have descriptions. The id description ('ID from matching list call') is helpful, but the body description only references an Apple schema name, which is obscure. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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), the resource (android to iOS app mapping detail), and the HTTP method with endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like create, delete, and get by explicitly using 'update'.
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 implies usage: it is for updating an existing mapping detail, as opposed to creating or deleting. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context like needing the ID from a list call (though the schema notes this).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.