update_age_rating_declaration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that attributes are passed through to Apple as-is (no client-side validation), which is real behavioral value, but it does not state whether the write replaces or merges existing answers, what happens on invalid keys, or auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a compact example and a pointer to get_app_info. Every sentence carries weight, with only minor awkwardness from the 'Writes.' fragment.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, and the object parameter is unconstrained (additionalProperties free-form). The description covers the action, example values, and key discovery, but omits replace-vs-merge semantics and error behavior for an undocumented-shape mutation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it shows the shape of the free-form attributes object with an example and points to get_app_info for discovering valid attribute names, going beyond the schema's vague 'Questionnaire answers to set'.

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 and resource: writes/answers the age rating questionnaire for an age rating declaration. It clearly identifies the mutation target and no sibling tool competes for this action, though the terse 'Writes.' fragment is stylistically odd.

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 clear context: read the current declaration with get_app_info first to learn the attribute names Apple expects. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what alternatives exist for reporting, but the prerequisite routing is concrete.

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