apple_set_subscription_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the downstream state consequence (MISSING_METADATA blocking review) and the default territory (BRA only), but omits reversibility, whether existing territories are replaced or merged, and the permission/'external action' implications. Partial coverage 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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no waste: the action first, then the consequence and default. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the consequence of skipping this tool is well covered. The significant remaining gap is parameter semantics (0% schema coverage) for a three-parameter mutation with no annotations.

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% across three parameters. The description only touches the default for territories ('Brazil only (BRA)'); it never explains the format of territory codes, the meaning of subscription_id, or what available_in_new_territories controls. With no schema help, the description fails to compensate.

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 and resource: 'Set the countries where the subscription is sold.' The 'subscription' scope distinguishes it from apple_set_availability (app-level), though it does not name that sibling explicitly. Clear enough to act on without opening the schema.

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 gives a strong prerequisite condition ('Without this the product stays in MISSING_METADATA and cannot go to review') and flags it as an external action, which implies required authorization. However, it never contrasts this with alternatives such as apple_set_availability or apple_set_subscription_price, nor states when-not to use it.

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