update_keywords

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is lighter — yet it adds nothing. Critically, it never says that the supplied keywords replace the existing keyword set entirely (the likely source of the destructive hint) or whether there are length/character limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate compression of rich content.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description omits replace-vs-append semantics, validation limits, and what is returned. An agent can guess the intent but not the consequences of calling it.

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% (both params documented, including 'Comma-separated keywords'), so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'for a specific locale' loosely gestures at localizationId but adds no format or sourcing detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update the keywords') plus a scope qualifier ('for a specific locale'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like update_app_description or set_iap_localization. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, keeping it below a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_app_description, update_whats_new, or the localization listers. No prerequisites are mentioned, such as needing an existing localization ID from list_app_store_version_localizations.

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