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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as a PATCH of promotional text but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects, error behavior, or response shape.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the operation and the key prerequisite.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits important context about effect, permissions, return behavior, and how this tool relates to the nearly identical sibling update_version_localization.

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 only 33%, but the description does little to compensate. It mentions localization_id and promotional_text by name, yet does not explain their semantics, and it says asc_app_id is required even though that is not a parameter in this schema.

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 specific verb and resource: PATCH an app store version localization's promotional text. It is clear what is being changed, but it does not explain how this differs from the sibling update_version_localization tool or what the 'probe' prefix implies.

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?

It gives a prerequisite condition (asc_app_id / localization_id on tenant), which is useful context for when the tool can be called. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_version_localization or other version-localization tools.

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