update_app_info_localization

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description's 'MUTATES' agrees with them rather than adding new information. It does not disclose the single most important behavioral question for a non-idempotent partial-update tool: whether the attributes object is a merge/patch (unspecified fields preserved) or a full replace (unspecified fields cleared).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an explicit scope marker, no filler, and the mutation nature stated first. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity costs information the agent needs.

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, non-idempotent mutation with a nested attributes object, 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is under-specified: no merge-vs-replace semantics, no permission or constraint notes, and no indication of which fields are actually updatable. What exists is accurate but far short of what an agent needs to call this safely.

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% and there are two parameters including a nested object, so the description must compensate. It names only two of the four attribute fields ('name and subtitle') and completely ignores privacyPolicyUrl, privacyChoicesUrl and localizationId, and says nothing about the 1-30 character bounds or URI formats.

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 states a specific verb ('MUTATES') and a specific resource class ('localized app-level metadata') and gives examples of the fields touched. It is distinguishable from the read siblings (get_localization, list_app_info_localizations) and from create_app_info_localization, though it never explicitly contrasts with update_localization, which handles a similarly named resource.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over update_localization or create_app_info_localization, and no prerequisites are stated. Critically, localizationId is required but the description never says where to obtain it or what it scopes the write to.

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