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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no detail about side effects, partial vs. full update behavior, permissions required, or error conditions. It merely restates the action implied by the tool's name, providing no extra transparency.

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?

The description is a single, extremely short sentence with no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. However, its brevity sacrifices useful context, though not enough to be penalized in this dimension.

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?

Despite complete schema coverage, the description lacks any behavioral or contextual information. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should at least mention the required appId and the updatable fields. As is, it is inadequate for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly based on the description alone.

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?

Since all three parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), the description adds no additional parameter semantics. It doesn't mention that name and description are the updatable fields, but this is already in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (an app), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_app, get_app, delete_app, and other update_ variants. However, it doesn't specify which attributes can be updated, making it slightly less informative than ideal.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existing appId), or whether it should be used alongside other tools. The description is purely declarative without context.

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