subscription_localizations_v2_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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about mutation side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what the response contains. Its only substantive content is a pointer to the OpenAPI request schema, which is marginally useful but not 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 sentence wastes its opening by duplicating the path in parentheses and then defers all real content to an external schema reference. It is short but not information-dense, and the duplication signals machine-generated padding rather than deliberate structure.

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-object body, the description is far too thin: it does not describe the JSON:API envelope, required attributes, relationships, or the returned instance. Pointing at an external OpenAPI component leaves the agent without the information needed to construct a valid call.

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 required 'body' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the schema's own reference (components.schemas.SubscriptionLocalizationV2CreateRequest) without adding any meaning, required fields, or envelope details beyond what the schema already says.

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 names a method and path (POST /v2/subscriptionLocalizations), which implies creating a subscription localization resource, so the verb+resource is recoverable. However, it never states the purpose in natural language and offers no differentiation from the sibling subscription_localizations_create_instance (v1) or subscription_group_localizations_v2_create_instance. The parenthetical repeats the same path verbatim, adding no clarification.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite many near-identical create-instance siblings (v1 localizations, subscription group localizations, in-app purchase localizations). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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