app_event_localizations_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the fact that a POST is issued. It does not say what the required JSON:API envelope relationships are, whether creation is additive, what errors occur on duplicate locale, or what the call returns.

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?

It is short and front-loads the endpoint, but the route is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, wasting the only non-trivial content in the sentence. The rest defers entirely to an external spec reference.

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 create tool with a nested JSON:API envelope, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at least sketch the envelope or required relationships. Instead it points to an OpenAPI component that the agent may not have access to, leaving the request contract effectively undocumented.

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 100% and there is a single `body` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only repeats the schema's pointer to components.schemas.AppEventLocalizationCreateRequest, adding no field-level meaning beyond it.

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 only restates the HTTP route (POST /v1/appEventLocalizations) and the tool name; the actual purpose, creating an App Event localization, is inferred from the name and the POST verb rather than stated. No distinction from siblings such as app_event_localizations_update_instance or app_clip_default_experience_localizations_create_instance is offered.

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 create versus update an existing localization, what prerequisite resources (app event relationship, locale) are needed, or when a sibling tool is the better choice. The agent must infer usage purely from the endpoint path.

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