beta_build_localizations__update

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

The annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false) are not contradicted by the description. The description adds behavioral context by noting the operation is tester-facing and limited to one language, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not mention edge cases such as behavior when whatsNew is null or response details.

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 that includes the HTTP method, resource, and specific action, with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 simple scope (updating a single field), a detailed input schema with nested objects, and annotations covering safety. The description conveys the primary intent adequately; while it does not explain the response format, the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable.

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 schema already describes the top-level parameters (id and body), but the description adds semantic meaning to the nested 'whatsNew' field by calling it 'what to test' notes. This provides value beyond the schema's type-only definition and helps the agent understand the purpose of the field.

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 a specific verb 'Set' and clearly identifies the resource as the tester-facing 'what to test' notes for a TestFlight build, scoped to one language. It distinguishes from sibling create/delete tools by implying an update to an existing localization, further reinforced by the PATCH endpoint.

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 provides clear context that this is for updating an existing localization's notes, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like beta_build_localizations__create for new localizations. The verb 'Set' and the PATCH endpoint imply an existing resource, making the usage context clear but not explicitly excluding other tools.

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