update_iap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention whether this is a partial update, what fields get changed, whether any validation or approval is involved, or what the response format is. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is so brief that it misses opportunities to add contextual value, so it is concise but not maximally effective.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema fully documents parameters, and there is no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the lack of annotations and absence of any usage or behavior details leaves notable gaps for an agent trying to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters (name, iapId, reviewNote) individually described. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already provides the necessary parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' with a clear resource 'in-app purchase', and the phrase 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete/list siblings. This is unambiguous and immediately tells the agent what the tool does.

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?

The description implies usage (only for existing IAPs, not for creation), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as create_iap or set_iap_price. No exclusions or alternative references are given, so the guidance is only implied.

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