app_availabilities_v2_create_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden yet discloses no behavioral traits: it does not say what an app availability controls (territory availability), whether the operation replaces existing availability, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur. Pointing at components.schemas.AppAvailabilityV2CreateRequest is a pointer, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 single sentence duplicates the endpoint verbatim in parentheses ('POST /v2/appAvailabilities (POST /v2/appAvailabilities)'), wasting the only sentence on repetition rather than front-loading the purpose. It is short but not efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested request body defined only externally, the description should explain the resource and its effect. Instead it offloads everything to an OpenAPI schema reference, leaving an agent without the context needed to use it 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'body' parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description merely repeats the schema's own pointer to components.schemas.AppAvailabilityV2CreateRequest and adds no field-level meaning.

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 exposes the HTTP verb and path (POST /v2/appAvailabilities), which implies 'create an app availability v2', but it never states the action in plain terms and simply repeats the endpoint string. It also fails to distinguish this create tool from nearby siblings such as app_availabilities_v2_get_instance or app_availabilities_v2_territory_availabilities_get_to_many_relationship.

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 use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., an existing app), or which alternative to pick. The description only names the endpoint, leaving the agent to infer all usage context.

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