beta_app_clip_invocation_localizations__update

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the PATCH method and URL path, which is useful context, but doesn't disclose behavior such as partial update semantics, error conditions, or whether the server returns the updated resource. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description contributes modest additional context, warranting a 3.

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, direct sentence with the endpoint in brackets. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value. No filler or repetition.

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 simple update tool, the description provides the core action and endpoint, and the schema covers parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the response will be or any side effects. Given the minimal complexity, this is adequate but not complete, so a 3 is appropriate.

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%, with both parameters described. The description itself adds no parameter details; it leverages the schema entirely. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 resource ('beta App Clip invocation localization'), and includes the HTTP endpoint. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools (e.g., beta_app_clip_invocation_localizations__create or delete) beyond the resource name, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, that create should be used for new localizations, or that delete is for removal. It only provides the verb and endpoint, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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