app_store_review_details__update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already inform the agent of the write, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds the PATCH endpoint but doesn't clarify whether fields are partially updated or fully replaced, or any other behavioral effects beyond the annotations.

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 a single, focused sentence with the endpoint path, wasting no words. It front-loads the verb and resource.

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?

The tool is a mutation with a nested request body and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full) or what a successful response returns. It lacks any workflow context such as needing an existing review detail ID and relationship to the create/get tools. This is inadequate for a tool of this 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (id and body), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it simply restates the update action. The nested attributes are documented by types, but not explained in the description.

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) and the resource (App Store review detail), and includes the HTTP method/path for additional clarity. This distinguishes it from the create and get sibling tools, as the update verb is explicit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the create or get variants, nor does it mention any prerequisites or workflow context. The only usage hint ('ID from the matching list call') is buried in the schema, not the description.

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