Reply to Customer Review

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

The description discloses write behavior, failure conditions, and error handling beyond annotations. It explains when it fails (existing response) and what errors occur, supplementing the minimal annotation hints (readOnlyHint=false).

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?

The description is well-structured: purpose first, then precondition, then parameter list, then return format, then errors. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers preconditions, return format, error cases, and parameter constraints. No obvious gaps remain.

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 100%, so the description adds limited new meaning. It repeats parameter descriptions already in the schema, with minor restating of max length and required status. A score of 3 is appropriate as description does not significantly enhance schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a developer response to a customer review (specific verb and resource). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on replies, not other creation operations.

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?

The description explicitly warns that the tool fails if a response already exists and suggests using the App Store Connect UI or API to update/delete first. It provides clear precondition and failure context, though it doesn't name a specific sibling tool.

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