set_review_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'on the editable version' and 'Required before submission,' but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing contacts or how demo_account_required interacts with omission. This is a moderate gap 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, and a key constraint with no wasted words. Every word 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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical workflow requirement. The schema handles parameter details, but the description could have added more behavioral context, such as what happens if demo_account_required is omitted.

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 tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, not even highlighting the demo account fields as optional.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies a clear resource ('App Review contact and optional demo account') on the editable version. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_for_review or release_notes.

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 'Required before submission,' providing a clear when-to-use context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the statement gives sufficient guidance for when this tool should be invoked.

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