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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a PATCH-style mutation but does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility, partial-update behavior, side effects, or how notification_message affects the action.

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 concise sentences with the update target front-loaded and the usage condition following immediately. There is no padding or redundant restatement.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it omits permissions, effects, and return behavior. More seriously, it claims the tool updates fields that the input schema does not support, so an agent cannot rely on the description to call it correctly.

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% for the sole parameter, notification_message, so the schema already documents it. However, the description instead lists name, primary locale, and bundle id as updatable fields, which are absent from the input schema, creating a misleading parameter picture rather than adding meaning.

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: update an existing app's name, primary locale, or bundle id. It also names the HTTP operation (PATCH apps) and distinguishes itself from create_app, though the listed fields do not match the input schema.

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 usage context: correcting app-level metadata after create_app. It does not state when not to use it or name other alternatives, but the create_app distinction is explicit.

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