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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral load and does add real context: hosting serves the bundle at /app/<slug> under this domain with a visible unreviewed banner, a meaningful consequence the agent could not infer. It omits reversibility, uniqueness of name, and permission requirements, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, using the optional hosting branch as the second beat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description establishes the primary behavior and the two hosting modes adequately. It stops short of covering error/validation behavior or the tool's relationship to project100_apps, but nothing essential to a 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%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters and a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds modest value by reframing html as a self-contained served bundle and homepage as 'stay where you are', but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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+resource (register an application) and covers the optional hosting behavior in the same breath, distinguishing the two code paths (html vs homepage). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling project100_apps (likely the listing tool), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives conditional invocation guidance ('pass html ... Or pass homepage'), which helps choose between optional parameters, but never states when to call this tool versus project100_apps or any alternative, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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