Update an existing in-app purchase's reference name or review notes to keep App Store Connect records accurate for App Review.
Update an existing in-app purchase
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New reference name | |
| iapId | Yes | The in-app purchase ID | |
| reviewNote | No | Review notes for App Review |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write operation. The description adds nothing beyond 'update'—it doesn't say whether omitted fields are preserved, whether reviewNotes trigger re-review, or what prior state is needed. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description should still add operational context but doesn't.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a one-line purpose statement, though it leaves the reader wanting scope details.
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 destructive mutation with several sibling tools, the description is too thin. It doesn't clarify partial-vs-full update semantics, does not route price/localization edits to their dedicated siblings, and gives no prerequisite context (e.g., needing an existing iapId from get_iap).
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 three parameters (iapId, name, reviewNote) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, so 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?
The description states a verb and resource ('Update an existing in-app purchase'), but it is vague about scope: it doesn't say which fields are updatable. With siblings like set_iap_price, set_iap_localization, and submit_iap_for_review, an agent cannot tell whether this is the metadata-edit tool or something broader.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description gives no hint that price changes belong to set_iap_price or localization changes belong to set_iap_localization.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.