ASC Add Subscription Group Localization

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it is a 'live write' requiring human approval, the MISSING_METADATA prerequisite, and the return/refusal shape. It does not, however, explain the destructive nature flagged by annotations or how the idempotency interacts with approval retries.

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?

Three short labeled lines (purpose, when, returns), front-loaded with the scope and the sibling routing before the return shape. No filler sentences.

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 the approval-required flow, the MISSING_METADATA motivation, and the return/refusal contract, and an output schema exists so return values need no expansion. The only gap is the destructive behavior implied by annotations, which the description never addresses.

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 all four parameters including the approval_id workflow are already documented in the schema. The description adds only an implicit hint that locale granularity is per-call, not new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Add one display-name localization to a subscription group') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the plural sibling ('For many languages use asc_localize_group'). An agent can route between the two 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 an explicit use condition ('when: a single locale is needed') and names the alternative plus the condition that selects it ('For many languages use asc_localize_group'). Nothing is left to inference.

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