update_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates mutation ('update') but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., must the version be published?), side effects, or permissions. The description lists updatable fields but does not go beyond that.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, lists the target fields clearly. No unnecessary words or repetition. Excellent conciseness.

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 description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks information about return values (no output schema), behavior on failure, or any constraints (e.g., version must be published). For a 6-parameter update tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

All 6 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already provides meaning. The description only repeats the field names without adding extra value like formatting constraints or interdependencies. 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 clearly states the action (update), the resource (metadata of a published app version), and specifies the fields that can be updated (description, tags, visibility, fork_allowed). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_version or publish_app.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for updating a version's metadata, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Given sibling names, the purpose is clear but lacks explicit context.

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