apple_set_app_privacy

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important traits: "Replace" signals a full overwrite of the existing declaration, "publish" and "External action" signal a live, externally visible mutation, and "Uses the console's internal API" warns of a non-public, potentially fragile integration. Missing are auth requirements and irreversibility/rollback details.

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 the action and its side effect, followed by the payload contract. The inline JSON example earns its space, though the categories/purposes pointer is a bit terse for an agent that cannot read the referenced constants directly.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation semantics and payload format that the schema and missing annotations leave open. It falls short only on permissions/prerequisites and on what "publish" changes about store readiness.

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 the `usages` array is loosely typed, so the description has to compensate: it supplies a concrete item shape, states one item per collected data type, defines the empty-list meaning ("we do not collect data"), and points to apple_console.DATA_CATEGORIES / DATA_PURPOSES for valid values. Only `app_id` is left unmentioned, which is self-evident.

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 pair ("Replace and publish") and a specific resource (the "App Privacy" declaration / privacy nutrition label). No sibling tool does anything comparable, so an agent can route here unambiguously from the name plus description alone.

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?

Usage of the `usages` payload is explained in detail, and "Replace and publish" implies the update context, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this (e.g. before submission, when data practices change) or any prerequisite such as an existing app version/declaration to replace.

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