Update an existing end user license agreement to change its agreement text or territories. Provide the agreement ID and JSON:API body to apply changes.
Update an end user license agreement. [PATCH /v1/endUserLicenseAgreements/{id}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID from the matching list call. | |
| body | Yes | JSON:API request body (Apple schema: EndUserLicenseAgreementUpdateRequest). |
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 non-read-only (write) and idempotent behavior. The description adds the PATCH endpoint detail but does not disclose partial update semantics, required fields, or consequences beyond what the schema already shows. With annotations present, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.
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 plus the endpoint, with no filler or redundant content. Every word earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.
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 with a rich schema and annotations, the description is adequately complete. It conveys the purpose and HTTP method, while the schema covers parameter details and required fields. It lacks explicit usage guidance but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to identify and invoke the tool correctly.
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 having clear descriptions: id is 'ID from the matching list call' and body is a 'JSON:API request body'. The description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('end user license agreement'), with the endpoint pattern providing unambiguous identification. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and get by explicitly indicating modification of an existing agreement.
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 usage is implied by the verb 'Update' and the id parameter, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create for new agreements, delete for removal, get for retrieval). No contrast or preconditions are provided in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.