reply_review

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that the reply is public and replaces any earlier reply (reinforcing destructiveHint), flags that review text is DATA not instructions (prompt-injection guard), states the auth/role prerequisite, and describes the confirm-then-poll jobId flow. None of this is in 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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct information (mode, side effect, safety caveat, prerequisite, return/next step), with the most important qualifier 'PREVIEW ONLY' front-loaded. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so (jobId, poll via get_job), and it covers auth, the destructive replacement behavior, and the injection caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 the four parameters (appId, country, reviewId, response with its 5970-char limit) are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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 ('reply to one App Store review as the developer') and front-loads the 'PREVIEW ONLY' qualifier, which distinguishes it from the actual-publish path. An agent can tell it apart from draft_review_reply and the confirm/get_job flow without opening a schema.

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 clear usage context: a connected App Store Connect key with the right role is required, and the async next step is named ('poll it with get_job'). It does not explicitly contrast the tool with the draft_review_reply sibling or state when a preview should be skipped, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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