apple_reply_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it warns this is an external action, that replying alone is insufficient because the version stays Rejected, that resubmission is required, and that HEVC is converted to H.264 at 1920px before upload. That is exactly the kind of irreversible/side-effect context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the external-action warning, then structured by scenario. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight; slightly over-packed for a single paragraph.

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?

Covers the action, the side effects, the size limit, the transcoding behavior, the required follow-up call, and the resubmission requirement. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the important parts: `text` is bounded at 4000 characters, and `attachments` is framed as the iPhone-recorded video with a stated transcoding behavior. `app_id` is left unexplained, keeping it from a 5.

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 ('Reply') and resource ('App Review on a rejected submission'), and explicitly flags it as an external action. An agent can distinguish this from apple_review_messages and apple_set_review_details without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (replying to a rejected submission) and names the companion tool apple_set_review_details with the condition that motivates using both. It stops short of a full when-not-to-use statement, so not a 5.

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