beta_app_review_details__update

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, permissions, or the need to match the body id with the path id. Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, but the description fails to enrich that with any additional useful behavioral detail.

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 concise sentence with an endpoint reference, making it easy to parse. It is not bloated, but it lacks extra guidance that could make it more useful. It fits the 'appropriately sized and front-loaded' criterion well.

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 an update operation with a nested body and no output schema, but the description provides no context about response formats, validation rules, or how to ensure the body id matches the path id. It also fails to disambiguate from similar update tools like app_store_review_details__update, making it incomplete for complex usage.

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%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameters or their semantics, but the schema already describes the structure and required fields, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('beta app review detail'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinctly different from sibling tools like beta_app_review_details__get or beta_app_review_details__list, and the HTTP method and path add precision.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies that it is for updating a beta app review detail, without mentioning related operations (e.g., get, list) or any prerequisites beyond the parameter hint 'ID from the matching list call.'

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