app_store_review_attachments__update

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, not destructive). The description adds the HTTP method PATCH, which implies partial update semantics, and the schema shows the updatable attributes. It does not, however, explain the implications of setting nullable attributes like uploaded or sourceFileChecksum, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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 extremely concise: one verb phrase and one endpoint specification. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 moderately complex update with a nested JSON:API body, the schema covers parameter structure thoroughly. However, the description does not explain response format (no output schema) nor the exact effect of setting attributes like uploaded or sourceFileChecksum, leaving some gap given the tool's mutation nature.

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%, with both parameters well-described: id from the matching list call and body as a JSON:API request body referencing the Apple schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an App Store review attachment') with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling create/delete/get tools. The explicit HTTP method PATCH and URL template remove any ambiguity.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing attachment, and the id parameter schema says 'ID from the matching list call,' giving a needed prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus create/delete alternatives or mention any preconditions like the attachment's upload state.

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