set_iap_localization

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates state ('Create or update') but gives no details on idempotency, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or side effects beyond what the name implies.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and to the point, though somewhat generic.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. The schema covers all parameters, but the description lacks any contextual guidance on prerequisites or behavioral expectations. However, the tool is relatively simple and the schema is rich, so it reaches the minimum viable threshold.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter descriptions, including the distinction between create (iapId) and update (localizationId). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create or update') and clearly identifies the resource ('a localization for an in-app purchase'). It distinguishes this from listing or pricing tools, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 alternatives like list_iap_localizations or update_iap. It doesn't explain the create-vs-update decision based on localizationId, which is critical usage context.

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