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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral details: it creates a new non-destructive version, defaults to an unpublished draft unless publish=true is passed, and notes that the owning service validates the definition on submit. No contradictions 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 is concise and front-loaded. It states the core action in the first sentence, adds the crucial constraint (EXISTING app), provides the schema reference, and ends with the optional publish behavior and the explicit alternative. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff.

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 rich parameter descriptions and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's scope, the required schema-fetch step, the publish option with default behavior, and the alternative for new apps. No critical usage context is missing.

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% with each parameter already well explained (app_id, publish, definition). The main description enriches understanding by linking the definition parameter to 'membership selector (prefix rules, includes/excludes) or display', which clarifies the purpose of the definition object beyond the schema text. This adds value without being redundant.

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 purpose: 'add a new version to an EXISTING app' with specific use cases (membership selector, display). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool create_app by adding '(For a brand-new app, use create_app.)', leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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 when-to-use guidance: it is for existing apps, and the parenthetical directs users to create_app for brand-new apps. It also instructs users to author the definition against the schema from get_app_definition_schema. However, it does not explicitly contrast with update_app or explain when to use publish_app separately after leaving the version as a draft, though the publish parameter description implies the alternative.

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