set_app_availability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the requirement for an explicit choice and warns that passing [] takes the app off sale worldwide. It also indicates a 'Pro feature' restriction, but does not mention whether changes are immediate, irreversible, or how they interact with existing territories beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the critical usage constraint. Every sentence adds value without repetition or filler, achieving excellent conciseness while covering the most important behavioral nuance.

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 output schema and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers the essential context: the core action, the required explicit choice, the off-sale case, and the Pro feature requirement. The schema handles parameter-level details, so the description does not need to repeat them. Minor gaps remain, such as the default behavior of available_in_new_territories, but that is documented in the 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?

The schema provides 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying the mutual exclusivity between territories and all_territories, and the special case of [] for taking the app off sale. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions, which could be misinterpreted without the explicit-choice context.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the app's country/region availability.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_app_price or set_app_metadata, which handle other aspects of app configuration.

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 description provides clear context on how to use the tool by requiring an explicit choice among a territories list, all_territories:true, or an empty list for taking the app off sale. It also notes the tool is a 'Pro feature.' However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it relative to alternatives, though no similar availability tool exists among siblings.

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