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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a scope limitation (no copy generation) and the return shape (names of fields written), but says nothing about permissions, whether partial updates are allowed, whether existing values are overwritten, or what happens with an empty payload — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence carries a distinct fact (scope, limitation, return value). No filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested-object parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell which fields are writable or what the expected payload shape is.

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 coverage is 0% and both parameters are nested objects with no property documentation. The description only implies that appStore maps to the App Store listing and googlePlay to the Play listing; the actual writable field names inside those objects are undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (App Store/Google Play listing fields), scoped to the current language, which separates it from sibling tools like update_text or update_screenshot. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implies the listing must be scoped to a language already set (likely via set_language) and rules out copy generation, hinting that copy work belongs to ai_translate. However, it never states prerequisites or explicitly names when to prefer another tool, leaving usage to inference.

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