asc_append_subscription_disclosure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses idempotency (skips if marker present), the default fallback (Apple's standard EULA when terms_url omitted), and a truncation limit (≤4000). It omits auth/permission requirements and exactly which description field is mutated, so it is not exhaustive.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the two behavioral caveats (idempotency, truncation) placed after. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers the key behavioral facts (append target, idempotency, default EULA, truncation), but leaves the targeted description field and any authorization prerequisite unstated for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains terms_url (defaults to Apple's EULA) and implies per-locale behavior via disclosure_by_locale, but bundle_id, privacy_url, and approval_id carry no added meaning beyond their names.

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 (APPEND) and resource (subscription disclosure + Terms/EULA + Privacy link to the description), plus the compliance context (Apple 3.1.2). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like asc_localize_subscription or asc_finalize_subscription.

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?

It implies the usage context (App Store subscription disclosure compliance for Apple 3.1.2) and notes idempotent re-runs, but never states when to use this versus alternatives or what prerequisites apply. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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