update_app_info_localization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states that a single field is updated but omits permissions, idempotency, side effects, and whether other fields are preserved, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and every phrase earns its place by naming the action, scope, and resource.

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 simple three-parameter update with full schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description identifies the target resource and that a single field is being changed. It stops short of explaining mutation behavior or sibling selection, which an agent would need in the absence of annotations.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds only 'specific field' and parenthetical examples (name/subtitle) that are already present in the enum, providing no syntax or constraint details 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?

The description states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'app info localization', and clarifies what that resource is (localized app name/subtitle). It does not, however, differentiate this tool from sibling update_app_store_version_localization, so a reader cannot tell from the description alone which localization type to update.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_app_info_localization, list_app_info_localizations, or update_app_store_version_localization. It implies a partial-update use case through 'specific field' but offers no explicit conditions or alternatives.

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