update_app_store_review_detail

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'updates' details, which implies mutation but does not clarify whether updates are partial or full, what the API response is, whether authorization is required, or if there are any side effects or rate limits. The description lacks sufficient behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second gives a necessary prerequisite. No redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence serves a clear function, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters, no output schema, and being a mutation tool, the description provides only minimal context. It does not explain how unspecified fields are handled (partial update vs overwrite), what the tool returns, error scenarios, or any constraints beyond the 4000-character limit for notes. The description is incomplete given the tool's complexity.

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?

All 9 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already provides meaning for each parameter. The description groups them into categories (contact info, demo account credentials, notes) which adds minimal value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not materially improve on the schema.

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 Store review details and lists the categories of fields (contact info, demo account credentials, notes). It mentions a prerequisite (get the ID via get_app_store_review_detail), but does not explicitly distinguish from other update tools like update_app_version. The purpose is clear but not uniquely differentiated from siblings.

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 description instructs the user to first get the review detail ID using get_app_store_review_detail, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_app_store_review_detail, update_app_version), nor does it mention any cases where it should not be used. Usage guidance is minimal.

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