Edit one localization row (local draft)

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

Without annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions the approval workflow, but does not specify whether the update is partial or full, what happens to unprovided fields, or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and a critical rule. No redundant information, perfectly front-loaded.

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 simple update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it edits, how to identify the row, and a key behavioral rule. It could be more complete by mentioning success responses or prerequisites, but it's largely adequate.

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%, and the description adds context for localizationId (source) and approve (consequence for pushes). However, the text parameter lacks additional semantics beyond being a string, and the description does not fully compensate for the missing schema 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 action (edit), the resource (localization row), and specifies it is by ID. It also refers to the source of the ID (get_app_metadata / get_release_notes), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like update_app_copy.

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 provides a key usage guideline: pushes only pick up Approved rows, and how to set approval via approve:true. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or contraindications, so it's slightly below perfect.

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