update_app_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose partial updates and the validate_only dry-run pattern, which is valuable. However, it omits potential side effects such as whether changes are sent for review, whether approvals are needed, or what happens to existing values not passed.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second clarifies update semantics, and the third gives a practical usage tip—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?

Given the rich 100%-covered schema and clear behavioral guidance, the description is largely complete for an update tool. It lacks only a mention of broader consequences like review flow or return behavior, but these are reasonable gaps for a concise description.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-related context by stating that only passed fields are changed and by recommending validate_only usage, which enriches the schema's per-field descriptions without repeating them.

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 updates app-level contact details and default language, which is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_listing or update_release_notes. The resource and scope are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what is being changed.

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 instruction to 'Use validate_only first to check the change without committing' provides concrete guidance for safe usage. It also sets partial-update expectations with 'Only the fields you pass are changed,' but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when to prefer update_app_details over update_listing.

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