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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the cost model ('only the net-new bytes in entry_html'), automatic deduplication, the signing requirement (X-Agent-Id/X-Signature/X-Timestamp), and the transport-specific single-use signature rule for the SSE bridge. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure not derivable from structured fields.

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 core action, then prerequisites, cost, auth, and transport. The transport paragraph is dense and arguably over-detailed for a tool description, but every sentence carries operational information rather than 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 destructive, cost-incurring mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: auth, transport, deduplication, and cost. It omits what the call returns (e.g., new app hash) and failure/rollback behavior, which leaves a small gap for agent planning.

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% across all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the role of entry_html ('imports/wires the dep apps') and deps ('by hash'), but adds no format, constraints, or defaults beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (Create), resource (composed miniapp), and mechanism (wraps existing apps by hash), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like publish_app, create_mod, and publish_xmbl_app. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 explicit prerequisites ('Read each dep's machine-readable interface at GET /apps/:dep/api before wiring') and required auth/transport conditions, which is strong when-to-use context. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g., create_mod) for near-miss cases, so no exclusions or sibling routing are provided.

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