update_version_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two useful behavioral traits: validation against Apple character limits before writing, and that it modifies the editable version, alerting the agent to potential scope restrictions. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, auth requirements, failure modes, or reversibility, leaving important operational unknowns.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a useful behavioral note and a Pro feature flag. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview and a key validation detail. However, it omits whether partial updates are supported, what the return value is, and prerequisites beyond 'editable version'. These gaps are notable but not fatal, making it adequate yet incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter in detail. The description adds only a high-level grouping of fields, which is somewhat redundant with the schema. It does not add syntax, format, or update semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('App Store metadata on the editable version'), and enumerates the exact fields (description, keywords, what's-new, promotional text, URLs, app name, subtitle). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_app_metadata or release_notes by specifying it targets the version-level 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?

The description provides clear context: it edits the editable version's metadata and validates character limits before writing, implying it's for pre-submission updates. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., set_app_metadata for app-level fields), so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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