Set the App Review contact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is covered. The description adds the 'editable version' constraint, which is useful, but says nothing about what existing settings get overwritten, auth requirements, or failure modes on a non-editable version. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading what the tool does before the prerequisite and the gating note. Every sentence 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 setter with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, precondition, and gating. It leaves minor gaps about what happens on a non-editable version or what gets overwritten, but the annotations and full schema coverage make it largely sufficient.

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 all 9 parameters are already documented, including the subtle demo_account_required behavior. The description only alludes to the 'optional demo account' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Set) and resource (App Review contact and optional demo account) plus a scope qualifier ('on the editable version'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name any sibling tool to differentiate from, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

'Required before submission' gives a concrete precondition for when the agent must call it, and 'Pro feature' signals a gating constraint. There is no explicit comparison against alternatives (e.g., submit_for_review or update_version_metadata), but the context is clear enough.

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