create_localization

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description mostly echoes that with 'MUTATES version metadata'. The useful addition is the submission-ordering requirement, but it does not say what happens on a duplicate locale, whether existing fields are overwritten, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short sentences, mutation warning front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is slightly compressed and requires inference to link 'app info' to the sibling tool.

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 mutation with a nested attributes object of six undocumented fields and no output schema, the description is thin. It needs at least minimal guidance on what attributes may be set and whether providing them overwrites existing localization content.

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 0%, so the schema documents names and constraints only. The description never explains versionId, the locale pattern, or the six-field nested attributes object (keywords, whatsNew, supportUrl, description, marketingUrl, promotionalText), leaving a large semantic gap for a nested-object parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'add a locale to an App Store version', and flags it as a mutation up front. The reference to 'app info' hints that the sibling create_app_info_localization covers the app-info side, though it never names that tool explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: the same locale must also be added to app info before submission, which is real workflow context an agent can act on. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative for the app-info half of the workflow.

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