asc_localize_subscription

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that IAP-unsupported languages are skipped during localization, a genuine behavior not derivable from the schema, but says nothing about the approval_id-driven approval flow, permissions, idempotency, or whether existing localizations are overwritten.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The items notation is terse but functional given the nested schema.

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 output schema covers return values, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and an unexplained approval_id parameter the description is thin. It covers the items payload and skip behavior but omits the approval/auth context an agent would need to call it 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the nested items shape (locale:{name,description}), which is valuable, but leaves sub_id and the optional approval_id undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb (localize) and resource (subscription) with a scope qualifier (MULTIPLE LANGUAGES). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling asc_localize_group, which targets groups rather than subscriptions, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other localization or subscription-sibling tools, and no prerequisites are stated. The only contextual note, that unsupported languages are skipped, is a behavior, not a usage condition.

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