apple_update_territory_availability

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope (single existing record) and that this is a mutation, but says nothing about whether it is a partial or full replacement update, what happens to fields left null/omitted, permission requirements, or what the call returns.

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 well-formed sentence with the mutation and its scope front-loaded, and no filler. Every clause carries 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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema and partial parameter documentation, the description omits update semantics (partial vs. full), null handling, and return behavior. It is adequate to identify the tool but not to call it confidently.

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 25%, with just territoryAvailabilityId documented (including the useful 'not the territory code' note). The description names the three mutable fields but adds no semantics beyond the schema, such as whether releaseDate must accompany preOrderEnabled or what null means for each field.

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 (change) and the exact resource and fields affected (availability, release date, pre-order state) on a single existing territory availability record. It also anchors the target to records returned by apple_list_availability, which distinguishes it from apple_create_availability and apple_list_availability.

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 phrase 'for one existing territory availability record returned by apple_list_availability' implicitly tells the agent to fetch the ID from that list tool first, which is real usage guidance. It stops short of explicit exclusions, such as directing new territories to apple_create_availability.

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