Update app details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Updates' but never discloses that changes are staged inside an edit and only take effect on commit, that unspecified fields are left untouched, what permissions are required, or whether destructiveHint-style overwriting occurs.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource scoping front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a 6-parameter mutation, but the structure itself is clean.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and a required editId that ties it to a multi-step edit workflow, the description omits the lifecycle context an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The two-sentence-worth of context that would make this callable safely is absent.

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 only 33% (packageName and editId documented; the four contact/language fields bare). The description partially compensates by naming those four fields as the updatable surface ('default language and/or developer contact info') but adds no format, expectation, or optionality detail beyond that grouping.

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 states a specific verb (Updates) and resource (app-wide default language / developer contact info), which maps cleanly onto the optional schema fields. It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling play_get_app_details or explain how it relates to the broader edit workflow, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus play_update_listing or play_get_app_details, and no mention of the prerequisite edit lifecycle (play_create_edit -> update -> play_commit_edit) despite the required editId. The agent must infer all usage context from the parameter name alone.

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