update_beta_build_localization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Update', which implies mutation but does not mention reversibility, required permissions, side effects, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 very short and front-loaded, comprising a single sentence that conveys purpose and a usage hint. It is efficient but could be expanded slightly for completeness without losing conciseness.

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 that there are 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (likely nothing), potential errors, or any post-update effects. This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by restating 'What to Test notes' which matches the schema's description. No additional constraints, formats, or examples are provided.

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 resource 'beta build localization', and specifies the content as 'What to Test notes'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_beta_build_localizations' by referencing it for getting the ID.

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 tells the user to use list_beta_build_localizations to get the localization ID before calling this tool, providing clear context. However, it does not exclude other scenarios or compare with other update tools like 'update_build' or 'update_version_localization'.

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