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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the call bypasses the edit/commit transaction, that the PATCH replaces the entire entry for the language (so all three text fields must be sent together), and that it silently CREATES a missing entry. Those are exactly the destructive/side-effect traits an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then the behavioral caveats in descending order of importance. Four dense sentences, all earning their place; slightly over-packed but 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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the risky behaviors (creation side effect, whole-entry replace, edit-transaction bypass). What it omits is what the call returns and whether a failed write leaves a partial entry — minor since the schema already documents the save/validation interplay.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that title, short_description, and full_description are a coupled set due to whole-entry replacement, which the schema lists only as three independent required strings. The save_mode/validation_mode traps are documented in the schema rather than repeated here.

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 (update), resource (app's main store listing), and the exact fields it governs (title, short/full description) for one language. That scoping clearly separates it from the sibling tools that touch adjacent resources: update_store_listing_screenshots, upload_store_listing_graphic, and update_store_settings.

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 clear prerequisite/ordering rule — it is the first call before attaching any graphic — and states that create_edit/commit_edit are not needed. It also flags the no-existing-entry case that creates one. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for graphics or settings, but the sequencing guidance is explicit.

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