Metadata Render Listing

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds the genuinely new fact that writes are local-only, which tells the agent nothing remote is mutated and that state lives on disk. It also restates the return shape, though an output schema already exists.

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 labeled lines: action, trigger, scope plus verification, and return shape. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a single-parameter local write with annotations covering the safety profile and a separate output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what changes, when to invoke it, that writes stay local, and which sibling verifies the result.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema description already covers it at 100% (absolute path to the app directory containing app.spec.json). The description adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the 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 ('Sync listing.json to the spec') and enumerates the concrete payload it touches (store locales, IAP copy slots, legal URLs). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling metadata_listing_check, which it explicitly frames as the verification step.

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: after changing the spec's store locales or products' gives an explicit trigger condition, and the description routes the agent to metadata_listing_check for verification. No explicit when-not or edge-case exclusions are provided, so it falls just short of a 5.

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