Upload an in-app purchase review screenshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing automatic product resolution via product_id and the 'Pro feature' entitlement gate. It stops short of saying what happens to a pre-existing screenshot, which is the natural question given destructiveHint=true.

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, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it uploads and why) is front-loaded. Even the terse 'Pro feature.' fragment carries gating information and earns its place.

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?

With all three parameters documented and no output schema to explain, the description covers purpose, trigger condition, and entitlement requirement. The remaining gap is destructive behavior detail: with destructiveHint=true and no statement about replacing an existing review screenshot, an agent cannot fully predict the side effect.

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 description coverage is 100%, so app_id, product_id, and file are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description only adds that product_id is auto-resolved to the product, a minor semantic clarification rather than new syntax or format guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Upload'), an exact resource ('the App Review screenshot a subscription or in-app purchase needs'), and the outcome it unblocks ('leave MISSING_METADATA'). The IAP/subscription qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling upload_screenshots, which handles app-store listing screenshots rather than product review assets.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition: use this when a subscription or IAP is stuck at MISSING_METADATA. That is real context an agent can act on, but it never states what to do instead when the blocker is a different status, nor names any alternative tool.

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