Open App Store Connect settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds the crucial context that explains this: the tool merely opens a browser page and the user performs any mutation, which is why a 'settings' tool is non-destructive. It also enumerates what the page exposes (API key, access mode, client setup), which goes 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the page contents, then the trigger conditions and the constraint. Each sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or title.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what happens, why it is safe despite touching credentials, and when to invoke it. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to explain the outcome to the user.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Nothing in the text conflicts with the empty input contract.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — opening the local settings page in the user's browser — and immediately scopes it with what the page is for (API key, access mode, client registration). This clearly separates it from every sibling, which are all data-retrieval or operation-invocation tools.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering conditions: credentials missing or rejected, or the user wanting writes enabled. It also sets the boundary that only the user can change settings there, so the agent knows this is a hand-off, not a programmatic fix.

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