app_info_localizations__create

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it creates a new language localization and mentions the affected listing fields. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as required relationship to an app info, potential duplicate errors, or return behavior. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single sentence with the endpoint, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the complex nested schema and rich sibling context, the description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. The schema fully documents the request body structure, and the description provides the high-level intent. However, it omits the requirement for the 'appInfo' relationship and does not mention that 'locale' is a required field, though these are present in the schema. The overall completeness is good but not perfect.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by naming some fields ('name, subtitle, privacy policy'), but it is slightly inaccurate—it says 'privacy policy' while the schema has 'privacyPolicyUrl', 'privacyChoicesUrl', and 'privacyPolicyText'. The schema itself already provides full parameter details, so the description does not significantly compensate.

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 clearly states the action ('Add'), the resource ('new language for the app-level listing fields'), and the specific fields involved (name, subtitle, privacy policy). It also includes the REST endpoint, which unambiguously identifies a create operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like app_info_localizations__get, __update, and __delete.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to add a new language for app-level listing fields. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling set includes read/update/delete operations for the same resource.

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