Upload a replacement name

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real context: it runs as a background job, a still-taken name is reported in renames.tried and the job fails with conflict, and the owner gets a native confirmation dialog afterwards. It does not describe timing/polling for the background job, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the DESTRUCTIVE / LIVE warning, then the workflow, then constraints and failure modes — a logical order. It is a single dense paragraph with heavy parenthetical nesting, so it is efficient but slightly harder to scan than it could be.

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 destructive, five-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers the prerequisite data source, the approval gate, the character limit, the failure mode and its report field, and the scope boundary (App Store only, no review submission). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the name must be the exact one the owner selected in this conversation, and that conversational approval is the precondition for ownerApproved/approval. The 30-character limit is repeated from the schema, which is minor redundancy.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (upload a replacement app name for a locale whose name App Store Connect refused) and names the feeding sibling (get_optimizer renames) plus the exact data it supplies. An agent can distinguish this from optimizer_choose or optimizer_edit_locale without opening any schema.

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 spells out the required sequence: show the owner the proposals, let them pick or edit, and call this only after an explicit in-conversation decision. It also states negatives — nothing is renamed automatically, App Store only, never submits for review — which is unusually complete routing guidance.

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