asc_availability_set

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: territories already in the target state are skipped, a partial failure does not abandon the remaining territories, and every territory is re-read and compared afterwards. This is exactly the kind of operational nuance an agent needs.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, technical constraint, failure semantics, verification behavior, and a known limitation. The main action is front-loaded and the supporting details follow a logical order.

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?

The description covers the operation, scale, failure handling, verification process, and a key limitation. There is no output schema, so return-value details are not required; the confirmation token is already documented in the input schema.

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?

All parameters already have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Turn an app's App Store availability on or off, territory by territory.' It clearly establishes the tool's scope and mechanical nature (one PATCH per territory, up to 175), leaving no doubt about what the tool accomplishes.

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 explains why bulk usage is impossible ('Apple offers no bulk endpoint') and explicitly calls out a limitation ('Cannot set availableInNewTerritories: that is web-UI only'). It would be stronger with an explicit mention of sibling alternatives, but the conditions and constraints are clear.

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