Update App Review Details

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the key behavior of partial update ('only the provided fields'), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like authorization requirements, rate limits, or the effect on omitted fields. With annotations providing safety profile, the description adds moderate value.

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 a single 13-word sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and behavior (partial update). Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the result of the update, how missing fields are handled, or any side effects. The annotations provide some safety context, but the tool's behavior remains vague for an agent to fully understand the implications of invocation.

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?

The input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description groups parameters into three categories (contact, demo account, notes), adding semantic meaning beyond the raw property names. However, it does not detail each parameter's purpose, constraints, or interactions. The grouping helps but the description is still sparse given the parameter count.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'App Review contact, demo account, or notes fields'. It specifies it only updates provided fields, distinguishing it from other tools like asc_create_review_details or asc_get_review_details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools in the sibling list, but the purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as asc_create_review_details or asc_get_review_details. The description implies it's for updating existing review details, but provides no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it.

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