Draft a public response to a review (Sampling + Elicitation)

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully compensates by disclosing key behaviors: uses Sampling and Elicitation, drafts in the review's locale, never auto-posts, returns a draft, and is a Pro feature. It omits potential error conditions but covers the essential behavioral traits.

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?

The description is highly concise with four short sentences, each adding distinct value: core function, locale/tone nuance, explicit non-posting behavior, and pro feature flag. Every sentence is purposeful and 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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the tool's purpose and workflow but lacks details about the draft's format or content. It also does not specify behavior when Elicitation is unsupported, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context beyond the schema, such as that the draft is in the review's locale and that tone may be asked interactively. However, it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding for the remaining parameters.

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 tool drafts a public reply to a single App Store review, using MCP Sampling. It uniquely distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_reviews and triage_reviews by focusing on drafting responses, not listing or triaging.

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?

The description explicitly states it never auto-posts and always returns a draft that the user must post manually, providing clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like review_status or other sibling tools.

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