Set country availability

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this by disclosing that [] takes the app off sale worldwide. It also adds an external requirement (Pro feature) not present in structured fields. It does not state reversibility or that unlisted territories are disabled, though the schema covers the latter.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the constraint immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the destructive case, the required-input contract, and the plan requirement. It omits what the response returns and whether partial failures are possible, which are minor given the rich schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds the mutual-exclusivity rule between territories and all_territories and the off-sale semantics of the empty array. This goes beyond restating parameter descriptions.

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 precise verb and resource ('Set the app's country/region availability'), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like set_app_price or set_app_metadata. An agent knows exactly what domain this mutates.

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 invocation rule: an explicit choice of territories list, all_territories:true, or [] for worldwide removal. It stops short of naming alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the required-input contract is unambiguous.

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