age_rating_declarations__update

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent write, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the rating is computed from the answers rather than directly selected, which is a non-obvious trait that affects how the request must be constructed. It does not disclose partial-update semantics or whether omitted questions are left unchanged, so it falls short of a 5.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the content-category examples are illustrative without being exhaustive, and the HTTP method/path suffix adds useful protocol context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 highly complex tool (nested JSON:API body with roughly 30 content-category attributes), the schema fully documents every attribute with enums and nullability, and the id parameter description directs the agent to 'the matching list call.' The description supplies the one framing the schema cannot — the answers-to-questions model and the derived-rating constraint. With no output schema, the response shape is left unspecified, but for a standard PATCH update this is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both top-level parameters (id, body) have schema descriptions, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds framing value on top: it signals that the body's numerous attributes are Apple's content questions, and the 'derived rather than chosen' note prevents an agent from hunting for a nonexistent direct-rating field. This meta-guidance justifies a score above baseline.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('set the app's age rating') and a distinctive mechanism ('Answer Apple's content questions'). Listing concrete content areas (violence, gambling, mature themes, unrestricted web access) makes the scope unmistakable, and the 'derived rather than chosen' clause differentiates this from any tool that would set a rating value directly.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the app's age rating needs to be set, you answer Apple's content questions. The 'derived rather than chosen' sentence acts as implicit usage guidance, steering the agent to populate content-category attributes instead of a rating field. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., app_infos__age_rating_declaration__get for reading) or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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