play_set_contact_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: the change is an external, user-visible action and is committed to the listing. It adds a correctness check (verify ownership) that goes beyond structured data, though it omits what null values do and whether authentication/authorization is required.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its commit semantics, then the external-visibility caveat. 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 explained, and the external/commit semantics are covered. The remaining gap is the semantics of nullable parameters (does passing null clear a field?), which neither the description nor the schema resolves.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names only two of the four fields (e-mail and website) and omits package_name and contact_phone, and gives no format or null-means-clear semantics, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 (public contact details of the Play listing) and adds the commit semantic, which distinguishes it from the read-only sibling play_contact_details. An agent can tell it apart from play_update_listing and play_contact_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 a clear context (publishing-facing details shown on Google Play) and names a verification alternative, store_audit_identity, for confirming the publishing entity. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites, but the routing hint is concrete.

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