apple_create_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one real behavioral fact — that this is the initial creation step, implying a precondition that availability does not already exist — but says nothing about permissions, conflict/error behavior, or whether existing settings 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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the actionable recommendation appended. No waste, though the two clauses could be split for faster scanning.

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 3-parameter mutation with nested territory objects and no annotations or output schema, the description covers what it does and one recommended configuration but omits failure modes and the relationship to the territory-update sibling. There is a nested array of objects with fields (releaseDate, availableInNewTerritories) whose purpose is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema documents territoryId and the territories array but leaves available, preOrderEnabled, and availableInNewTerritories bare. The description adds genuine semantics by explaining what available/preOrderEnabled combination corresponds to a normal release, which the schema defaults alone do not convey.

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 plus resource ('Create initial app availability') and the scope ('explicit territory settings'). The word 'initial' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling mutation apple_update_territory_availability and the reader apple_list_availability, though it never names them.

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?

The description gives one concrete usage recipe ('use available=true and preOrderEnabled=false for a normal release'), which tells the agent how to handle the common case. It stops short of saying when to use this versus apple_update_territory_availability, or what to do if availability already exists.

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