update_app_review

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already flags this as a mutation, so the bar is lower. The description earns credit for "Pass ... the full `settings` object," which hints at replacement semantics rather than a merge, but it does not spell out whether omitted keys are cleared, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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 with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the id-lookup instruction follows immediately. Every sentence carries weight, though the parenthetical field list is somewhat loose.

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 2-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, an annotation flagging intent, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, how to obtain the id, and the expected settings payload. Only the write semantics (replace vs. merge, what gets destroyed) remain thin.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema and the description largely restates the id guidance. The "full settings object" phrasing adds a mild semantic nuance (whole-object replacement) but no field-level detail beyond the schema example.

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 ("Update the product-review app's settings") and names the kinds of fields affected (shop_info, auto-approve, display options). It is distinguishable from the generic update_app sibling by the product-review scope, though it never explicitly says how it differs from update_app.

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?

Adds a useful retrieval hint for the id (get_app with type "product_review"), which is contextual guidance rather than pure when-to-use. It never states when to prefer this over update_app or what preconditions must hold for the review app to accept settings.

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