set_age_rating

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

The description discloses that Apple computes the final age rating from the provided declarations, which is a behavioral trait beyond the schema. It also mentions 'Pro feature', hinting at access restrictions. However, it doesn't explain side effects, reversibility, or permissions, and since no annotations are present, the description carries the transparency burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 two sentences long and includes a practical example. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema details. It is efficient 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 the moderate complexity (nested object param) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, example, Apple's rating calculation, and pro restriction. It doesn't mention return values but that's covered by the schema. The description is complete for a simple set operation.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds limited value. It provides an example of the declarations map but doesn't introduce new meaning beyond the schema's explanation of keys and value types.

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's purpose: 'Set the app's age-rating content declarations'. This uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling set_* tools by focusing on age rating. The added context about Apple computing 4+/9+/12+/17+ reinforces the tool's specific domain.

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 implies usage (pass declarations map) and notes it's a 'Pro feature', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No comparison with sibling tools like set_privacy_nutrition or set_app_metadata is given.

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