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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that user data is never overwritten ('Les données déjà enregistrées par les utilisateurs ne sont jamais écrasées'), that the URL does not change, and provides a migration workflow. This is exceptional transparency for a mutation tool, covering both what it does and what it avoids doing.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a key constraint (URL unchanged), and the third adds a crucial behavior (data preservation) with a concrete workflow. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, key constraints, and a specific workflow for data migration. Given the absence of an output schema or annotations, it is quite complete, but it does not mention the response/return value or error conditions. Still, the core behavior and its limits are well explained.

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 80% (4 of 5 params have descriptions), so the schema already handles most parameter meaning. The description adds high-level context (replaces HTML/title, doesn't touch data) that aligns with the 'html' and 'data' params, but does not go into parameter-specific syntax or format. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding significant 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?

The description clearly states the tool's core function: 'Remplace le HTML et/ou le titre d'une app déjà publiée.' It specifies the resource (published app) and the exact actions (replacing HTML and/or title), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like publish_app (create) and set_app_data (update data). The added 'L'URL ne change pas' also clarifies the scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (updating an already-published app's HTML/title) and explicitly points to alternatives in a key scenario: 'si votre nouvelle version change la structure des données, lisez d'abord get_app_data puis migrez avec set_app_data.' It does not, however, offer a general use-case comparison with all sibling tools, but the purpose already implies the right usage.

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