magaza__cagir

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds the human-confirmation gate and the verb-based rule that selects it, which is genuinely new behavioral context. It stops short of describing rate limits, auth requirements, or what a failed/approved call returns.

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, zero filler: capability first, discovery step second, safety gate third. Ideal front-loading for a dispatcher tool.

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 nested-object gateway with no output schema, it covers the key unknown (how to obtain a valid operation name) and the safety precondition. It omits what the response looks like and whether results are store-specific, a minor gap given the schema does the parameter work.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema (including onayla's 'don't set true unless the user asked'). The description restates the onayla rule rather than adding format or structure detail beyond it, matching the 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: running arbitrary operations against App Store Connect and Google Play APIs. It implicitly differentiates itself from the typed siblings (appstore__*, play__*) as the generic dispatcher, but never says why an agent would choose this over a dedicated tool.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to resolve the operation name via magaza__endpoint_ara first, and states the precondition that mutating verbs (POST/PATCH/PUT/DELETE) require onayla=true. This is actionable when/when-not guidance tied to a named sibling.

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