Update a beta license agreement's text by specifying its ID and the new agreement text in the JSON:API request body.
Update a beta license agreement. [PATCH /v1/betaLicenseAgreements/{id}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID from the matching list call. | |
| body | Yes | JSON:API request body (Apple schema: BetaLicenseAgreementUpdateRequest). |
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 indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the HTTP method PATCH and endpoint, which provides some behavioral context (partial update), but does not disclose permissions, side effects, or reversibility. This is a modest addition beyond the annotations.
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 the endpoint, front-loaded with the action. There is no wasted text 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?
The schema and annotations cover request structure and safety profile, but the description lacks response information (no output schema) and any usage guidance. It is adequate for a simple update but has clear gaps.
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%, including the id purpose ('ID from the matching list call') and the JSON:API body structure. The description itself adds no parameter information, 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') and the target resource ('a beta license agreement'), and includes the specific endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get, list, or app get for the same resource.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, required prior calls (e.g., fetching the ID), or scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus other beta license agreement tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.