[Write] Add a new App Info locale

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key failure mode ('Fails if the locale already exists') and a dryRun option. It also labels the operation as 'Write' upfront. However, it does not mention permissions or what the response looks like, so it is not fully transparent.

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 concise with three sentences, but the leading 'Write.' duplicates the title's '[Write]'. Every other sentence adds value: purpose, failure condition/alternative, and dryRun support. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, failure mode, alternative tool, and dryRun. It also provides a concrete locale example. Missing details include the specific privacy policy parameter semantics and expected output, but these are not critical for tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 50% (4 of 8 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context by grouping 'name, subtitle, privacy policy' as the localized fields, and gives an example locale. However, it does not clarify the distinct privacy policy parameters (privacyPolicyUrl, privacyChoicesUrl, privacyPolicyText), which remain ambiguous. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 function: 'Creates app-level localized fields (name, subtitle, privacy policy) for a new locale'. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource. It distinguishes from the update tool by explicitly noting 'Fails if the locale already exists — use asc_app_info_localization_update for existing locales'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'Fails if the locale already exists — use asc_app_info_localization_update for existing locales.' This directly names the sibling tool for existing locales, making the usage context clear. The mention of dryRun also signals a preview option.

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