Respond to customer review

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond those: that the call replaces any existing response, that publication is asynchronous ('after Apple processes them'), and that user approval of wording is required first.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct payload: what it does, the replacement/mutation consequence, the async publication behavior, and the approval gate. Zero filler and the effect is front-loaded.

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?

A two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema; the description covers everything an agent needs — overwrite behavior, propagation delay, and the human-approval requirement — with nothing material missing.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the body text is publicly visible, but adds no format, length, or ID-sourcing detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 (posts) and resource (public developer response to an App Store customer review) with clear scope. It is trivially distinguishable from siblings list_customer_reviews and delete_review_response.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Ask the user to approve the wording before calling this') and clarifies the overwrite semantics, which implicitly routes agents away from this tool when they only want to read or remove responses. It stops short of naming delete_review_response as the alternative for removal.

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