apple_update_accessibility_declaration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether omitted boolean fields are preserved or reset (critical with 9 optional booleans), or whether changes are reversible. Only the bare implication of 'Update' is conveyed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined density; every sentence earns its place but there are too few of them.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain update semantics and field handling; instead it offers only a one-line restatement of the name.

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 only 10%: declarationId is described, and the nine supports* booleans have no schema descriptions at all. The description never mentions these capability flags or how partial updates are handled, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap even though the property names are self-explanatory.

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 ('Update') and a specific resource ('accessibility nutrition label declaration'), which clearly separates it from siblings like apple_create_accessibility_declaration, apple_list_accessibility_declarations, and apple_delete_accessibility_declaration. It stops short of any scope or effect detail, but an agent can identify the operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create, get, or list, and no note that a declarationId must first be obtained via apple_list_accessibility_declarations. The agent must infer all preconditions.

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