apple_create_treatment_localization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the mutation itself. It does not say what happens if the locale already exists, whether the call is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what is created/returned.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the payoff second, with no filler. Its brevity is a virtue for structure but contributes to the disclosure gaps elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required ID parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from it what a successful call produces or how to handle an already-localized treatment.

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 only 50%: 'locale' is documented in the schema, but 'treatmentId' has no description anywhere. The phrase 'to a treatment' only loosely hints at treatmentId and adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for either parameter.

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: 'Add a locale to a treatment'. The sibling set contains list/delete treatment localizations and custom-product-page localization tools, and the name plus description make this one distinguishable, though the description itself does not name the alternatives.

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 purpose clause ('so it can get its own screenshots and visuals') implies why you would do this, but there is no guidance on prerequisites (treatment must already exist), duplicate-locale behavior, or when to use the custom-product-page localization variant instead.

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