Update an existing beta App Clip invocation by providing its ID and a new URL to modify the destination for testing.
Update a beta App Clip invocation. [PATCH /v1/betaAppClipInvocations/{id}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID from the matching list call. | |
| body | Yes | JSON:API request body (Apple schema: BetaAppClipInvocationUpdateRequest). |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, and the description aligns with these. The description adds the PATCH method indicating partial update semantics, but does not elaborate on failure modes, permissions, or side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence paired with the endpoint reference. Every word serves a purpose with no filler 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?
Given the simple update operation, rich schema, and annotations, the description and schema together cover the essentials. It does not state the return value or explicitly describe partial update semantics, but the PATCH endpoint and schema's single attribute imply these. A small gap remains around expected response.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for both 'id' (existing invocation ID) and 'body' (JSON:API request body) with detailed nested structure. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the schema carries the load.
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 verb ('Update') and the resource ('beta App Clip invocation'), and includes the HTTP method and path. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or get.
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 via 'Update' and the PATCH endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other operations or mention any prerequisites/alternatives. No exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.