set_app_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: 'Each applied only if provided' explains partial updates, and 'Pro feature' alerts the agent to plan constraints. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or reversibility, which are still relevant for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence, then the update semantics and Pro feature in two short sentences. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, update semantics, and access constraint. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites, exact response behavior, or interaction with other metadata tools, but it is reasonably complete for a setter tool.

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 meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that each field is applied only if provided (non-destructive), giving a concrete example for category IDs ('HEALTH_AND_FITNESS'), and explicitly tying encryption to export compliance.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'submission-required app basics', enumerating exactly which fields are affected (category, copyright, content rights, export compliance). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_version_metadata or set_age_rating by focusing on app-level metadata.

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 phrase 'submission-required' provides clear context: this tool is for setting app metadata needed for App Store submission. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a full 5.

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