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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that affected files are rewritten and a new version is saved (explaining the non-idempotent, mutating nature), that live changes are gated behind a subsequent deploy_app call, and that the app must have finished building first. The annotations only carry destructiveHint/readOnlyHint/idempotentHint flags; the description supplies the versioning, deploy-state, and precondition semantics the agent actually needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the triggering scenario, then each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, non-redundant fact (what it rewrites, the deploy gate, the build prerequisite). No filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description already covers the mutation behavior, versioning, deploy gating, and the build prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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%, so both parameters (artifactId, instruction) are already fully documented in the schema, including the source of artifactId and the plain-words nature of instruction. The description echoes 'described in plain words' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 examples of what 'change' means (add a feature, change a screen, restyle, fix). It clearly distinguishes itself from the generic edit_artifact and from build/create_app siblings by scoping to modifying an existing built app.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants to change an app they built'), plus a named prerequisite (app must have finished building; check app_status) and the deploy relationship (change not published until deploy_app is called again). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative to use instead in any scenario, so it is strong but not a full when/when-not/alternative matrix.

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