Update a territory availability record to change its availability, release date, or pre-order status for an app release.
Update a territory availability. [PATCH /v1/territoryAvailabilities/{id}] RELEASE-level write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID from the matching list call. | |
| body | Yes | JSON:API request body (Apple schema: TerritoryAvailabilityUpdateRequest). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID from the matching list call."v2.0.0Input schema / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Resource identifier."v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is not read-only, is idempotent, and is destructive; the description adds that it is a PATCH and a "RELEASE-level write." However, it does not explain what specifically may change or what release-level permissions mean in practice.
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 extremely concise, front-loads the action and resource, and then gives the endpoint and write category without filler. Every fragment contributes useful routing information.
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 schema covers all parameters and annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not clarify PATCH partial-update semantics or practical effects on availability, release date, and pre-order settings. It is minimally adequate rather than fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters and nested JSON:API body structure are already documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema baseline.
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 and resource: "Update a territory availability," and adds the HTTP operation and endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related list/create availability 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 gives no guidance on when to use this update tool instead of alternatives such as listing territory availabilities or creating app availability records. It implies updating an existing resource but provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.