update_whats_new

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say the existing text is overwritten, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions/version states are required for a destructive mutation.

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 efficient sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero padding. It is terse but not wasteful.

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 what an agent needs most: permissions, version-state prerequisites, overwrite semantics, and the expected result. Annotations cover only the safety flags.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase 'for a specific locale' loosely maps to localizationId but adds no format or sourcing guidance (e.g., where the localization ID comes from).

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 gives a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('What's New' text) scoped to a locale, which is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like update_app_description or update_keywords. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus update_app_description/update_keywords, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the version localization needing to be in an editable state. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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