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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly warns that previous data is permanently lost and advises warning the user. This is critical behavioral disclosure for a destructive operation. It doesn't mention authentication or rate limits, but the core destructive nature is well-covered.

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 three sentences long, with the main action front-loaded. Each sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and what to warn about. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage, and irreversible consequences. It doesn't mention return values or error conditions, but these may be less critical. Overall, it provides solid contextual guidance for an agent.

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 coverage is 67% (data and secret_token are described, slug is not). The description adds context about the data parameter being the entire JSON document and the destructive consequence, but does not provide additional meaning for slug or secret_token beyond the schema. It is adequate but not exemplary.

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 that the tool overwrites the app's JSON document, with a specific verb ('Écrase') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's the only way to replace existing data, which differentiates it from tools like update_app or get_app_data.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases: migrating data to a new structure or starting from scratch. It implies this is for full replacements, not partial updates, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The 'seule façon' phrasing helps clarify when to use it.

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