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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not repeating safety basics. It adds real value beyond them with actionable retry guidance for the non-idempotent case and the disclosure that the SDK key is withheld on creation, which points the agent to get_sdk_setup/reveal_sdk_key.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the two highest-risk behaviors. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description still volunteers the key behavioral caveat about the withheld SDK key. It covers plan limits and non-idempotency; what remains thin is parameter behavior and error handling when the plan limit is exceeded.

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 carries the burden, and it says nothing about the single appName parameter (length limits, uniqueness, collision behavior). The parameter name is largely self-explanatory and maxLength is visible in the schema, so this is a gap but not a severe one.

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 and resource ('Create an app') and adds a scope constraint ('under the existing plan limit'), which implicitly separates it from get_app/list_apps/delete_app/rename_app. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the top-tier 'use X instead' clarity.

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?

It gives a clear conditional procedure: 'inspect apps after an uncertain outcome before retrying,' which implicitly routes the agent to list_apps/get_app on failure. However, it does not state when-not-to-use this tool or name alternative tools directly, and gives no preconditions such as required permissions.

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