optimizer_edit_localeEdit draft listing fields for a specific locale, including title, keywords, and descriptions; pass an empty string to clear a field.
Change fields of one locale's draft listing (empty string clears a field).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Fields to change; an empty string clears the field. | |
| locale | Yes | Locale of the draft. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id (from get_overview). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the partial-update semantics (empty string clears a field), which is useful mutation context, but says nothing about whether edits touch only the draft or live listing, whether a publish action follows, or whether field choice depends on platform (Apple vs Google).
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?
One front-loaded sentence, no filler, and the most surprising behavior (empty string clears) is placed immediately after the scope statement.
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?
A nested-object mutation tool with three required params and no output schema; annotations cover safety and the schema covers field constraints in detail. What remains missing is the relationship to the draft/publish lifecycle and why the sibling tools differ, leaving the description only minimally adequate for a write operation with a nested payload.
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% and every field carries its own platform-specific length guidance, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats the empty-string-clears rule already documented on the 'fields' property and adds no new meaning about 'locale' or 'projectId' beyond the schema.
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?
Specific verb+resource: changes fields on one locale's draft listing, with the scope ('one locale's draft') made explicit and the clear-field convention stated. It does not name or contrast with the closest siblings (optimizer_localize, optimizer_save_option, optimizer_choose, publish_listing), so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus optimizer_localize (which presumably generates content) or optimizer_save_option / publish_listing. The only usage signal is implicit in the word 'draft'. Nothing tells the agent whether a separate publish step is required or which sibling to pick for a different edit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.