set_version_metadata

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that What's New is required per Apple and that the call should be made once per locale. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context, though it could mention permission requirements or response details.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value (purpose, usage pattern, follow-up). No redundant or vague language.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters (all well-documented in schema) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: identifies required fields, locale handling, and post-call validation step. An agent can correctly invoke this tool with the provided information.

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%, but the description adds practical semantics: notes that What's New is required for submission, explains the locale default (en-US) and suggests adding other locales if supported. This goes beyond the schema's field 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update App Store version localization metadata') and specifies the exact fields (What's New, description, keywords, etc.). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_ios_store_listing (which handles store-level listing) and validate_app_submission (which checks submission readiness).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: before submitting for review, per locale, with en-US as required default. Also provides a clear follow-up step: 'Use validate_app_submission afterward.' No ambiguity about alternatives.

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