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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes further by explaining that affected files are rewritten, a new version is saved, and changes are not published until deploy_app is called again. It does not cover recoverability of prior versions or permission requirements, so it stops short of fully fleshing out 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then side effects, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter mutating tool with an output schema present, the description covers the trigger, the write behavior, the versioning side effect, the deploy coupling, and the build-state precondition. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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%, with both parameters documented and example instructions given in the schema itself. The description restates that the change is expressed "in plain words" but adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb (change/edit) and resource (an app built in Xenition), with concrete change categories (feature, screen, restyle, fix). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby edit_artifact sibling, so an agent must infer that this is the app-specific path.

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?

"Use this when the user wants to change an app they built" gives clear triggering context, and the closing sentence adds a precondition (app must have finished building; check app_status). No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. edit_artifact) is given.

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