apple_delete_placement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key blast radius: only the placement goes away, the reusable asset and other placements survive. It does not say whether the removal is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to a localization left with zero placements.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the most important safety fact (asset survives) trailing immediately. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and blast radius but omits confirmation of irreversibility, auth requirements, and return behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a delete operation.

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% and there is one required parameter, placementId, which the description never mentions. The only help is the word "localization," hinting the placement lives under a localization, but nothing explains the identifier's format or where to obtain it.

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 pair ("Remove a placement from its localization") and immediately delimits scope by saying the library asset and its other placements are untouched, which separates it from apple_delete_asset. It does not name the sibling it differs from explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader can infer this is the right tool when the intent is to detach a placement from one localization rather than delete the asset, and that apple_delete_asset covers the latter. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives by name.

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