beta_app_review_details__update

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

The description adds the HTTP method PATCH, which aligns with idempotentHint=true. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so no contradictions. Additional behavioral details (e.g., auth needs, side effects) are absent, but annotations cover the essential safety profile.

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 very concise—one sentence plus the HTTP path—and front-loaded with the key action. Every word earns its place, though it could slightly benefit from clarifying what 'detail' includes.

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?

Given the nested input schema and no output schema, the description lacks explanation of return values or the impact of updates. However, the schema documents attributes adequately, providing sufficient context for an update operation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters: 'id' as 'Resource identifier.' and 'body' as 'JSON:API request body...'. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, meeting the 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 clearly states 'Update a beta app review detail,' which specifies the verb (update) and the resource (beta app review detail). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get', 'list', and 'app__get'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools for reading or listing. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where update is appropriate.

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