update_app_info_localization

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 only indicates mutation ('Update') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the localization does not exist. This lack of detail is a notable gap.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first states the action, and the second provides immediate usage guidance. There is no redundant information, and every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain partial update semantics, validation rules (e.g., character limits), or what the response looks like. The core purpose is clear, but deeper context is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions three key parameters (name, subtitle, privacyPolicyUrl) but omits privacyChoicesUrl and privacyPolicyText. It adds some context by highlighting the typical fields to update but does not go beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'app info localization', and specifies the exact fields that can be changed (app name, subtitle, privacy policy URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_version_localization' by focusing on app-level 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 description explicitly says 'Use this to change...' indicating the context for usage. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but given the sibling tools, the usage is clear enough. A score of 4 reflects its clarity without exclusionary guidance.

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