Update store listing

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), it discloses that only fields passed change and only if they differ, that results are shown as old → new, that localization is auto-created, that edits are gated on editable versions, and that re-runs are safe. This is rich context an agent needs before mutating metadata.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: mutation scope and diff behavior lead, followed by field grouping and constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the field-placement sentence is a little list-heavy.

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 19-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers auth, idempotency, editability gating, and the old → new return shape. Remaining gaps (exact response structure, per-field format) are minor given the annotations and schema already present.

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?

With schema coverage at 47% across 19 params, the description compensates meaningfully by grouping fields by location (app info vs version) and explaining the version:"live" and default-locale semantics. It doesn't clarify the remaining undocumented params' formats, but most are self-evident fields.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Updates App Store metadata for one locale.' It scopes the operation (one locale) and effectively distinguishes itself from read-oriented siblings like get_listing and the narrower set_whats_new by covering the full metadata surface.

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?

It gives clear conditions for use: only versions being prepared can change, except promotional text on the live version via version:"live". It also notes the write requirement (ASC_WRITE=1). It stops short of naming explicit alternatives, so it falls just below the top tier.

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