app_version_listing_update

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'full replace' and 'PUBLIC IMPACT' adds some context about customer-facing changes and the replacement behavior. But it still lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or error states, which is acceptable given the annotations cover the basic destructive trait.

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, but the second sentence is a long URL, which reduces conciseness. The information is front-loaded with the action and impact, but the length could be trimmed by shortening the link or integrating it as a reference.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters, a nested object body, and no output schema, the description should explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., existing listing), and body structure. It only mentions 'full replace' and customer-facing impact, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain the 'body' parameter's structure or the meaning of 'appSoftwareId' and 'buildNumber'. While the spec link provides external documentation, the description itself adds minimal value 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?

The description clearly states 'Update an existing version-listing (PUT — full replace)', specifying the verb, resource, HTTP method, and replacement semantics. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like app_listing_update or app_version_listing_create, which could be confused for similar operations.

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 includes 'PUBLIC IMPACT: changes the customer-facing version metadata after approval', providing some context on when the tool should be used (after approval). However, it offers no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., app_version_listing_create for new listings, app_listing_update for app-level updates).

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