apple_update_listing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the important partial-update semantic ('Only the fields passed are changed'), which tells the agent omitted fields are preserved rather than nulled. However it says nothing about permissions, whether changes trigger review/resubmission, or reversibility 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the partial-update rule, with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 described, and the partial-update rule plus the whats_new caveat are the most important behavioral facts. Still, for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the absence of locale-default and per-field guidance leaves the definition under-specified.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it only explains whats_new. keywords, description, promotional_text, and especially locale (which has an unusual default of pt-BR) are left entirely undocumented.

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 (store listing texts of a version) with a scope qualifier (for one locale). It is distinguishable from the platform-mirror sibling play_update_listing mainly by the apple_ naming prefix rather than by anything in the description.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites (auth, version state). The one usage constraint given, that whats_new cannot be used on an app's first version, is genuinely useful but is field-specific rather than a routing rule.

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