create_editCreates a new Google Play Console app edit and returns its ID, enabling draft changes without publishing. Starting an edit can invalidate another open edit for the same app.
MUTATES Play Console draft state: creates a new app edit and returns its id. Creating an edit can invalidate another open edit for this app; it does not publish changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packageName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description still adds real value by spelling out the consequence (invalidating another open edit for this app) and by clarifying that nothing is published. It does not cover edit lifetime/expiry or required auth scopes, which matter for a draft-state mutation.
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 compact sentences, mutation warning front-loaded in caps, return value and non-effect both stated. Nothing redundant.
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 no output schema, the description correctly states it returns the edit id, and it covers the safety and concurrency implications of a destructiveHint tool. Only the edit lifecycle (expiry, one-open-edit-per-app rules beyond the warning) is left unaddressed.
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?
One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about packageName beyond implying it identifies the app. The name plus the schema regex make the value inferable, so this is a passable but uncompensated gap.
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 (creates) and resource (a new app edit) and adds the return value (its id), which separates it from get_edit. It never names the sibling alternatives (commit_edit, discard_edit) explicitly, so the differentiation is implied 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?
"it does not publish changes" scopes the tool away from commit_edit and the draft-state framing tells the agent this is the entry point for an editing session. The warning that creating an edit can invalidate another open edit is genuine when-to-be-careful guidance, though no alternative is named for reading or finishing an edit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.