update_app_info_localization

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does disclose the mutation nature and upsert behavior, which is more than the schema offers. However, it omits permission/role requirements and, critically, does not say whether fields left out of the request are cleared or preserved, nor what the write returns.

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 tight sentences with the mutation signal front-loaded and the upsert caveat second; nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic 'Writes.' reads more like a tag than prose.

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 6-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it modifies, at what granularity, and that it creates the locale when missing. Gaps remain around authorization and partial-update semantics, but the core call decision is supported.

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 67%, so name/locale/subtitle/app_info_id are documented and only the two URL parameters lack descriptions. The description names the same fields (including the two undocumented URLs), which gives slight semantic framing but adds little beyond the schema's own property names.

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 (Set/Writes) plus the resource (per-locale App Information fields of an appInfo) and enumerates the affected fields. It is distinguishable from update_app_info by the per-locale qualifier, though it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling or with update_app_store_version_localization.

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 leading 'Writes.' implies this is a mutation and the upsert note ('Creates the locale if it does not exist yet') tells the agent it is safe to call for new locales, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against update_app_info / update_app_store_version_localization.

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