update_app_store_version

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the mutation ("Writes.") plus the editability precondition. It stops short of the traits that matter for a write: whether this is a partial or full replace (do omitted fields get cleared?), permission/role requirements, and whether changes are reversible once submitted.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the mutation signal and the writable-field list. Nothing is padded, though the bare "Writes." fragment is slightly cryptic as a standalone opener.

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 5-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the precondition, the editable fields, and the release-type enum adequately. It omits what the response looks like and the full-replace-vs-partial-update question, leaving meaningful gaps for a write tool.

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 80%, so the schema already documents copyright, version_id, version_string and earliest_release_date. The description echoes those fields and restates the SCHEDULED requirement for earliest_release_date rather than adding new semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Update an App Store version" with the exact mutable fields enumerated (version string, copyright, release type). An agent can distinguish it from update_app_store_version_localization by the resource noun, though the description never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

"that is still editable" is a real precondition that tells the agent when this call will fail, which is more than nothing. However, there is no routing guidance toward update_app_store_version_localization or update_app_info for adjacent edits, and no statement that version_id must come from list_app_store_versions (only the schema says that).

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