ASC Localize Subscription

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: it is a live write requiring human approval, unsupported locales are silently skipped, and the result/refusal shapes are named.

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 front-loaded lines: action, when-to-use, and return contract. No filler, and the approval caveat is placed where an agent will read it before invoking.

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 re-explained at length, and annotations cover safety. The description still supplies the approval_required refusal path and locale-skipping behavior, leaving little an agent needs missing.

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%, including the approval_id round-trip protocol, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds little beyond reinforcing the batch-locale semantics, which is baseline-3 territory 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Localize a subscription's name and description in many languages at once'), which cleanly separates it from the group-level localization siblings such as asc_localize_group. It never names an alternative explicitly, but the resource qualifier does the differentiation work.

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?

'Use when: filling per-locale product copy' gives clear context for invocation. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., asc_localize_group vs asc_add_subscription_group_localization) or state exclusions, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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