set_beta_build_localization

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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields. The description adds some context by explaining that the tool creates or updates localized beta test text, but it does not explain overwrite behavior, permissions, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key update-mode condition. No wasted text.

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 low-complexity mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves notable gaps: parameter formats, what happens to existing localization text, and domain-specific constraints are not described.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only explains localizationId's role and loosely maps whatsNew to 'What to Test text'; buildId, locale, and validation/format expectations remain undocumented.

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 a specific verb pair (Create or update) and resource (localized What to Test text for a TestFlight build), which is clear and differentiated from generic App Store whats-new tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the TestFlight-build scope makes the purpose distinguishable.

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 sentence 'Supply localizationId to update an existing locale' gives clear create-vs-update guidance and tells the agent how to select update mode. It lacks broader when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools, but the core usage condition is explicit.

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