asc_pricing_set

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the exact destructive consequence: Apple defaults preserve_current_price to false, so omitting it silently re-prices existing subscribers at renewal. This is precisely the kind of behavioral warning an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the critical required-parameter behavior, and the prerequisite lookup. The warning is front-loaded immediately after the action, so an agent is unlikely to miss the risk.

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 destructive 7-parameter write with no output schema, it covers the core behavior, the dangerous default, and the prerequisite lookup. It does not contextualize the gated confirm field or territory/start_date semantics, though those are documented in the schema, so the description is strong but not exhaustive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining the boolean semantics of preserve_current_price and by telling the agent where price_point_id comes from. It does not need to repeat the schema's existing parameter 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Change a subscription price' — and the rest of the description sharpens the action by explaining the preserve_current_price effect. This is clearly distinct from the sibling asc_pricing_get (read) and asc_write (generic write) tools.

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?

States the clear use case: changing a subscription price and choosing whether existing subscribers keep or migrate their price. It also gives a concrete prerequisite step for obtaining a price point id, but it does not explicitly name when to prefer this over asc_write or call out 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.