Update App Details

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

Discloses the crucial read-modify-write behavior — 'Only the fields supplied are changed... read from the current details and written back unchanged' — with the underlying reason that the Play API replaces the whole resource. With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and covers the single most dangerous hidden trait (accidental field wipeout), though it leaves the confirm/confirmation_token flow unexplained.

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?

Two tight paragraphs, about 50 words: the first sentence states purpose, the second delivers the one behavioral fact that matters, with its rationale. Every sentence earns its place and the actionable info is front-loaded.

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?

Covers the core operation and the highest-risk behavior well, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. What's missing is moderate-context: the confirmation/flow semantics, whether an edit session (create_edit/commit_edit siblings) is required or committed automatically, and explicit routing versus update_listing. For a 7-param tool in a complex API with no annotations, this is adequate but not complete.

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 first sentence groups the four data params (default_language, contact_email, contact_phone, contact_website) into a meaningful natural-language set, adding semantic value over the raw schema. But schema coverage is only 71% and the two undescribed control params — confirm (default false) and confirmation_token (no description in schema) — receive no clarification from the description, leaving a business-critical ambiguity about whether a call actually commits changes.

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 states a specific verb (Update) targeting a resource ('app-level details') and enumerates the exact fields affected ('default language and store contact information'). The 'app-level' scoping distinguishes it from the many update_* siblings like update_listing, update_track, and update_user without needing to open their schemas.

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 scopes is implied by 'app-level details' — an agent can infer it applies to app-wide settings rather than listing or track content. However, no alternative is named and no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance is given, despite a sibling list full of update_* tools where routing guidance would materially help.

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