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

Annotations already establish that the tool is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds the 'to the runbook' scoping and clarifies that the app is created as a shell to be filled in later. It does not discuss duplicate handling, idempotency, or return value, but for a simple create tool the core side effect is clear.

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 with no filler: the first states the core purpose, and the second gives the workflow and a bulk alternative. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter create tool with full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate and includes useful workflow guidance. The main gap is that the bulk-import alternative is described as 'through the web app' rather than pointing to the available sibling import_plan tool, which is the actionable option in this MCP context.

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 name, by, and platforms. The description only lightly restates 'name and platforms' and does not add meaning beyond the schema; the required by parameter is omitted from prose but is fully covered in 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 opens with 'Add an app to the runbook', a specific verb and object that clearly identifies what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from add_section and add_check by framing those as follow-up steps rather than alternatives.

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 gives a clear workflow: create the app first, then use add_section and add_check to fill it in, or upload a markdown plan for a whole plan. It names alternatives but routes the bulk upload through the web app instead of the sibling import_plan tool, so it is not fully explicit about the when-not-to-use case.

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