pricing__set_iap_price

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

Annotations already declare a destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses that Apple replaces the whole IAP price schedule, that all other manual prices and scheduled changes are read and re-sent unchanged, and that pricing the base territory shifts Apple's automatic prices elsewhere. These side effects are exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive mutation.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the required inputs, then the two critical side effects, capped by 'REVENUE-level write.' No filler; every sentence carries actionable content for a destructive tool.

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?

Covers prerequisites, side effects, and the schedule-replacement behavior expected of a destructive pricing write with no output schema. What is missing is minor — no mention of required permissions or success/return confirmation — but the core is complete.

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 all five parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them (territory 'e.g. TUR', price 'e.g. "99.99"'). It slightly clarifies the app/iap relationship, but omits start_date entirely — though the schema covers it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (change/set) and resource (in-app purchase price) scoped to one territory, and adds the differentiating clause 'without assembling a price schedule.' An agent can separate this from pricing__set_subscription_price by the IAP resource without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear invocation context — supply an IAP ID, or app plus IAP product ID, plus territory and price — and contrasts with the heavier 'assembling a price schedule' workflow. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (pricing__get_iap_price, pricing__set_subscription_price) or exclusion conditions, so it is context-rich but not fully routable.

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