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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses real side effects: the call mints both the app and version 1, publish=true triggers immediate publication, and an empty definition is a valid draft but publishing requires a membership that selects something. The emphasis on creating a BRAND-NEW app, combined with idempotentHint=false, implies each invocation produces a fresh app, which is consistent with the annotations.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then orients the reader through the workflow, which is appropriate for a complex authoring tool with a large sibling set. There is some redundancy (the folder-prefix and membership-selector ideas are restated), but the density of useful guidance justifies the length.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested object, large sibling set, draft-vs-publish semantics), the description covers the key operational questions: what it creates, when to use it vs create_app_version, how to author the definition, and the publish behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and nothing critical is left ambiguous for a first-time caller.

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% and the parameter descriptions are already rich (slug as folder prefix, publish behavior, definition validated against a fetched schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context — slug as the prefix under which member resources are authored and definition as the membership selector — but most parameter meaning is already carried by the schema, so no higher score is warranted.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('create a BRAND-NEW app') and clarifies the dual effect ('mints the app + its version 1'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_app_version ('To add a version to an existing app, use create_app_version'), which is the closest sibling, and names the workflow context ('Start here when building a page or an API bundle').

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Start here when building a page or an API bundle', and points to the alternative tool for the adjacent case ('To add a version to an existing app, use create_app_version'). It also provides concrete usage direction for the publish flag ('Pass publish=true to publish v1 immediately') and for authoring ('fetch its JSON Schema with get_app_definition_schema and author against it').

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