app_info_localizations__update

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (write operation, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: the per-language effect scope, the 30-character limit on name and subtitle, and the PATCH method which implies partial-update semantics. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Two sentences carrying exactly three useful pieces of information: action + fields + scope, the length constraint, and the endpoint path. The verb is front-loaded, there is no fluff, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 moderately nested 2-parameter update with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the definition gives an agent what it needs to call correctly: target ID origin (schema), field structure (schema), and key constraints and scope (description). Minor gaps: null-field behavior is unspecified and no disambiguation from app_store_version_localizations__update is provided.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by mapping 'name' to the domain meaning 'listing title' — resolving an ambiguity the bare string field cannot — and by disclosing the 30-character cap that the schema's nullable-string declarations do not convey.

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 (update), resource (app info localization / listing metadata), and scope (one language), and maps the ambiguous Apple field to a domain concept ('listing title (Apple's field is called the name)'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling localization updates such as app_store_version_localizations__update, and the endpoint path provides a concrete identity anchor.

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 'for one language' scope and the 30-character cap give some usage context, but the description never states when not to use the tool or names an alternative (e.g., app_store_version_localizations__update for version-specific metadata, or app_info_localizations__create when the localization row does not yet exist). Usage must be inferred rather than guided.

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