play__yorum_yanitla

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the crucial specifics: the reply is publicly visible and cannot be undone, and it silently refuses to run without onayla=true. That is meaningful risk detail beyond the structured hints, though it stops short of describing auth scopes or error behavior.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, then the risk and the confirmation gate. Nothing is padded and the most consequential fact (irreversible, public) is front-loaded after the action.

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 4-param mutation with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers action, publicity, irreversibility, and the confirmation gate. It lacks only ancillary details (which review states accept replies, what happens on invalid yorum_id), which are minor for this scope.

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 all four parameters (including the 350-char limit, the yorum_id source, and the confirmation gate) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the onayla requirement without adding format or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: writing a developer reply to a Google Play review. Combined with the sibling list, an agent can distinguish it from play__yorumlar (reading reviews) and appstore__yorum_yanitla (the App Store equivalent) by platform and action.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite ('onayla=true verilmeden çalışmaz') but no when-to-use vs alternatives, no indication of which reviews are valid targets, and no mention of rate limits or eligibility. The gating condition is useful but not a full usage policy.

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