update_age_rating_declaration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral constraint: Apple API does not support partial updates, so all attributes must be specified. However, it does not mention authentication needs, potential side effects, or what happens on invalid values. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for behavioral notes). No wasted words.

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 complexity (nested attributes, no partial updates) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., updated object, success status) or when to refresh data. For a mutation tool, more context about output or side effects would be beneficial.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains the structure of attributes object, enumerates the allowed values for string fields (NONE/INFREQUENT_OR_MILD/FREQUENT_OR_INTENSE), clarifies boolean properties (gambling, contests, etc.), and warns about the no-partial-update requirement. This is above baseline.

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 the action ('更新します' - update) and the resource ('年齢制限アンケート' - age rating questionnaire), specifying the content covered (violence, gambling, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools focusing on other aspects of app management.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_app_info or submit_for_review. No explicit context on prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing age rating declaration) or when this update is necessary (e.g., before submission).

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