Edit version metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond that: it discloses that Apple character limits are validated before writing and that it targets only the editable version. It does not state partial-update semantics or what happens on validation failure.

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, fully front-loaded: verb+resource first, then the editable field list, then the validation and gating notes. No filler or restated title.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, annotations covering the destructive profile and a fully documented parameter schema, the description is nearly complete. The one meaningful gap is that it never says omitted fields are left untouched (partial update) versus cleared.

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%, with each of the 11 parameters carrying its own description and length limits, so the baseline is 3. The description merely re-lists the same fields and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb ('Edit') plus resource ('App Store metadata on the editable version') and an explicit enumeration of editable fields. Clear enough that an agent knows what it does, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling set_app_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?

Context is only implied: 'on the editable version' signals a precondition (the version must be in an editable state) and 'Pro feature' signals a gating requirement. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing away from the near-duplicate set_app_metadata sibling.

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