appstore__metin_guncelle

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the published-version immutability rule, which materially affects whether the call will succeed. It does not describe rollback or side effects, but it adds real value over the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The action and affected fields come first, and the critical editing constraint is front-loaded second. Nothing redundant.

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 but full annotation coverage and a 100%-documented schema, the description supplies the needed editing-scope constraint. It omits confirmation/error behavior, but that gap is minor given the onayla parameter and annotations already convey the destructive/open-world profile.

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% and each parameter carries its own description (including the onayla confirmation flag and the localization-id lookup path), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's field list ('sürüm notları, açıklama, anahtar kelimeler, tanıtım metni') loosely maps to the params but adds no format or constraint detail beyond it – baseline 3.

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 and resource ('Bir sürümün mağaza metinlerini günceller') and enumerates the editable fields (release notes, description, keywords, promo text). No sibling performs this edit, so the agent can identify the tool, though it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear applicability constraint: only the in-preparation version can be edited, not the published one. This is strong when-to-use guidance, but it does not name an alternative tool for related operations or state prerequisites beyond the version state.

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