asc_write

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

While annotations already flag readOnly=false and destructive=true, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: consequential tiers (REVENUE, DESTRUCIVE, INFRASRUCTURE, ACCESS, RELEASE) prompt for user confirmation, and dry_run validates without sending. This helps an agent anticipate side effects and safety gating beyond the raw annotation booleans.

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?

Four sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, consequential behaviors are stated next, and the dry_run and schema-discovery guidance are packed into the final two sentences. Every sentence justifies its place.

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 complex write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational concerns: mutation scope, user confirmation gates, dry-run safety, and where to find the correct body schema. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but given that the response depends on the endpoint and the agent is pointed to asc_describe_endpoint, this is a reasonable completeness level.

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?

The input schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), including JSON:API body, base64 uploads, query filter syntax, and the confirm token. The description adds value only by directing the agent to asc_describe_endpoint for the operation-specific body schema and recommending dry_run, but it does not substantially expand parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'Change something in App Store Connect: create, update or delete,' which clearly identifies the tool as a writ operation and differentiates it from read-oriented siblings like asc_call and asc_status. It is immediately clear what the tool does and what category of operations it covers.

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?

It gives explicit guidance to 'Use dry_run first when you are unsure what a call will do' and to 'Read asc_descibe_endpoint first to get the body schema right,' which are concrete stepps for safe and correct usage. It also explains that consequential tiers require user confirmation before anything is sent. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use asc_write in favor of a read-only sibling like asc_call.

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