ASC Localize Group

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare destructive, idempotent, open-world, and non-read-only), the description adds the critical behavioral trait that this is a live write requiring human approval, and it describes the approval-refusal outcome. This goes well beyond what the structured annotations provide.

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 three tight sentences: purpose first, usage condition and alternative second, return shape third. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema already exists, the description need not explain return values in detail, yet it still does briefly. Together with the rich annotations and the explicit alternative for single-locale use, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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 schema already fully documents group_id, approval_id, and name_by_locale. The description adds no additional syntax or format details for the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Localize a subscription group's display name') and scope ('in many languages at once'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling asc_add_subscription_group_localization for the single-locale case, so an agent can select it correctly without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when: several locales are needed') and an explicit alternative ('for one locale use asc_add_subscription_group_localization'). The condition that selects the alternative is clear, leaving no inference needed.

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