apple_set_free_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'External action' vaguely signals a remote mutation, and 'price 0 in the base territory' implies the change is scoped, but there is no disclosure of permissions required, reversibility, whether existing purchasers are affected, or how other territories are handled.

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?

Two short fragments, front-loaded with the action and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the trailing 'External action.' reads as a cryptic note that could be clearer.

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. For a mutation tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, however, the description omits prerequisites and side effects that an agent would need before invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only gestures at 'base territory' (the base_territory param, default BRA) and says nothing about its accepted format or values, and never explains app_id. This leaves both parameters effectively undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: making the app free at price 0 in the base territory, which is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling 'apple_set_subscription_price' (subscriptions vs. app price). It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from that sibling, but the action is clear.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., paid-app agreements, build state), and no routing to alternatives. The agent gets a bare action statement with no context on when this is the right call versus other pricing operations.

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