app_info_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 of behavioral disclosure. The only signal is the HTTP verb 'POST', which weakly implies a write, but nothing is said about authentication requirements, required parent relationships, side effects, or idempotency. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a large gap.

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 text is short but wastes its only content: the route is duplicated verbatim inside parentheses ('POST /v1/appInfoLocalizations (POST /v1/appInfoLocalizations)'). Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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 creation endpoint with a nested JSON:API body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies almost nothing an agent needs: no parent resource, no required fields, no response behavior. Pointing at an external OpenAPI component is only marginally helpful when the schema itself is opaque (additionalProperties: {}).

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% for the single 'body' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only a pointer to 'components.schemas.AppInfoLocalizationCreateRequest', which names where the shape lives rather than explaining any field semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool name as an HTTP route: 'POST /v1/appInfoLocalizations'. 'Create instance' plus a POST path is a tautology rather than a statement of what resource is created or what it contains. It does not distinguish this tool from the many other *_create_instance siblings in the list.

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 appInfo), or which sibling to use instead. An agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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