apple_set_availability

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 reasonably: it discloses that this is an external mutation, that it uses the console's internal API because the public one returns 409, that it runs in the dedicated Chrome session, and that EU inclusion requires a trader declaration. It still omits whether existing territories are overwritten or merged, which matters for a mutation.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause and the supporting caveats are compact. Formatting is slightly awkward with the parenthetical example and line breaks, but there is little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a 3-parameter mutation tool with zero schema documentation and no annotations, the description should explain available_in_new_territories and the overwrite semantics; it covers the environment and EU prerequisite but not those gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain territories as 3-letter ISO codes with an example (["BRA"]), but app_id is left implicit and available_in_new_territories — a non-obvious boolean — is never explained, leaving a meaningful gap.

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+resource — choosing the countries where the app is available — which is clear and concrete. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling apple_set_subscription_availability, so an agent must infer the app-vs-subscription scope from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no naming of alternatives. The only contextual note is a prerequisite (EU availability requires the DSA trader declaration), which is a constraint rather than a routing rule.

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