apple_create_placement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose meaningful behavior: it implicitly requires the asset to be uploaded/ready and it is idempotent because it reuses an existing identical placement. It does not cover permissions, what happens on conflicting placements, or what the call returns (no output schema), leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite (apple_get_asset_specs) plus idempotency note following. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the main workflow but omits the mediaType and targetType dimensions and says nothing about the returned placement identifier that sibling tools like apple_reorder_placements or apple_delete_placement would need.

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 correctly explains where placementType and placementGroup values come from and implies localizationId must be editable, but mediaType, targetType (defaulting to appStoreVersionLocalizations), and the string format of assetId/localizationId are never addressed.

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+resource: place a ready library asset onto an editable localization. It references the sibling that supplies inputs (apple_get_asset_specs) and distinguishes itself from listing siblings by the 'place' verb. It does not explicitly contrast with apple_delete_placement or apple_reorder_placements, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite chain: placementType and placementGroup must come from apple_get_asset_specs, and the asset must already be a 'ready' library asset. It also notes reuse of identical placements. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided, which keeps it below a 5.

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