Update app store review detail

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds process-level context ('Required before submit for review') but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as overwriting behavior, idempotency, or permission requirements. Since annotations cover basic safety profile, the description adds some value but not deeply.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause serves a purpose. It is efficient and free of irrelevant content.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the 'why' (required before submit) and the 'what' (fields to update), but it does not state what the tool returns, which is common for update tools. The workflow hint compensates somewhat, but the absence of any return behavior leaves a gap.

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 input schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into 'contact, demo account, notes,' which provides a high-level conceptual mapping but does not add any syntax or format details beyond the schema. This is acceptable but not additive.

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 action: 'Update App Review details for a version: contact, demo account, notes.' This uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('App Review details'), and lists the key fields, which distinguishes it from the sibling read tool 'get-app-store-review-detail' and from 'submit-for-review'.

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 explicitly provides a usage condition: 'Required before submit for review if app needs login or special instructions.' This tells the agent when in the workflow to use the tool and implies when it may not be needed, offering clear context without needing to name alternatives.

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