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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it discloses the payload (code, blueprint, tests) and the versioning default, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 resource and payload, followed by the version note. Nearly zero waste, though 'to read or change it' is slightly redundant and mildly confusing.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (code, blueprint, tests) and the version default, and annotations cover safety. Auth requirements and failure behavior for a bad slug/id are left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the version default ('the version served unless you ask for another'), which clarifies behavior the schema only labels as 'Optional'.

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 names a specific verb ('One app with its code, blueprint and tests') and singular scope that clearly separates it from list_apps and get_spec. The trailing 'to read or change it' is a bit ambiguous for a read-only tool but the core resource is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'The version served unless you ask for another' gives implied guidance on default vs explicit version. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to siblings like list_versions or get_spec, so usage is only implied.

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