app_info_localizations__update

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

Annotations already cover idempotent and non-destructive traits. The description adds the 30-character cap and the PATCH method, which suggests partial updates, but it does not describe side effects on unspecified fields or any permission requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, and the second sentence adds a key constraint and the HTTP method. No unnecessary information is included.

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?

The tool has a rich schema and annotations, and the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint. However, it omits the privacyPolicyUrl and privacyChoicesUrl updatable attributes, which is a minor gap, and it does not describe the response format.

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?

The input schema fully documents id and body. The description adds a concrete constraint not in the schema: app name and subtitle are capped at 30 characters. However, it omits mention of updatable URL fields (privacyPolicyUrl, privacyChoicesUrl), though these appear in the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and clearly identifies the resource ('app's name, subtitle or privacy policy text') and the scope ('for one language'). The name 'app_info_localizations__update' and the endpoint path further distinguish it from sibling create/delete/get tools.

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 implies usage when modifying an existing app info localization, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus create/delete or other update tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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