set_iap_review_screenshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the outcome (leaving MISSING_METADATA), the mechanism (resolves product by product_id automatically), and a requirement (Pro feature). It does not detail whether the screenshot replaces an existing one or mention permissions, but it gives a meaningful account of the tool's behavior.

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. The first sentence states the purpose and condition; the second adds the automatic resolution and 'Pro feature'. There is no redundancy or filler, and the key information 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?

For a 3-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when it is needed, and a key behavioral detail (automatic product resolution). It does not explain return values or error handling, but the operation is simple enough that these omissions are non-critical.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that product_id is used to resolve the product automatically, which clarifies the role of that parameter beyond its schema description. This extra semantic context justifies a score above baseline.

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 action: 'Upload the App Review screenshot a subscription or in-app purchase needs to leave MISSING_METADATA.' It names the specific resource (subscription or IAP review screenshot) and the outcome (leaving MISSING_METADATA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_screenshots by targeting IAP-specific screenshots and emphasizing automatic product resolution.

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 when to use the tool: when a subscription or in-app purchase is in MISSING_METADATA state and needs a review screenshot. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the 'subscription or in-app purchase' scope and the automatic product_id resolution provide clear context for selecting this tool over generic upload screenshots.

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