app_availabilities_v2__create

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: an empty list wipes availability from all territories, and this is a RELEASE-level write affecting a live app. It stops short of covering permissions or whether the operation replaces or merges existing territory state.

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?

Three short sentences with the core operation, the destructive edge case, and the endpoint/lifecycle context. The most consequential detail (empty list removes all territories) is front-loaded, and nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema to explain, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to convey intent and effect, which it does. The remaining gap is that the request body contains a boolean and an included array whose roles are not mentioned, which matters for a nested single-body-parameter tool.

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 schema itself is deeply nested, so the baseline is 3; the description earns the extra point by explaining the semantics of the territoryAvailabilities list (empty versus populated) that the schema cannot express. It does not explain availableInNewTerritories or the included territory attributes (available, releaseDate, preOrderEnabled).

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 and resource ('Set an app's availability') and clarifies the resource in plain terms ('the countries it is sold in'). It implies the write counterpart to app_availabilities_v2__get but never names that sibling or territory_availabilities__update, which handles per-territory detail, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

The empty-list versus populated-list semantics tell the agent what each call accomplishes, which implies when to use it. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling territory_availabilities__update or the read-only app_availabilities_v2__get, and no prerequisites are named.

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