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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the wholesale-replace semantics, that description is set to exactly what is passed, and that an empty/omitted description clears the field — concrete destructive behavior that the destructiveHint alone does not convey. It also names the recovery path (get_app first), which is the key operational context for a non-idempotent-looking overwrite.

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, front-loaded with purpose and sibling routing, then the destructive-replace mechanics with the safe procedure. The parenthetical is dense but every clause carries operational weight; nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. What remains for an agent to call this correctly — scope, replace semantics, clearing behavior, and the read-before-write step — is all present.

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 coverage is only 33% (only app_id is described), but the description compensates by explaining that display_name is required and that description is set verbatim and clears on empty/omitted input. app_id's meaning is left to the schema's own one-liner, which is adequate but the only small gap.

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 and resource (update an app's display name and description) and immediately scopes it to metadata only, explicitly routing versioned-definition changes to create_app_version. An agent can distinguish it from create_app_version, publish_app, and rename_app_slug without opening any 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 an explicit alternative for out-of-scope fields (use create_app_version for membership selector and display metadata) and an explicit prerequisite workflow (read current values with get_app first, then pass both fields). When-to-use and how-to-use-safely are both covered.

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