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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real context beyond that by disclosing the preservation rule ('a platform you leave out keeps its file') and the ""-removes-it behaviour for raw JSON. It stops short of saying what happens when both a raw file and the structured ids are supplied, or what a failed write leaves behind.

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 resource being written, then the two modes, then the preservation rule — every clause carries information. The middle sentence is a long run-on that bundles inputs, outputs and formatting, which costs a little readability.

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, non-idempotent write with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the modes and the preservation rule but leaves gaps: interaction/precedence between apple_json and ios_app_ids, and the result of the call. Adequate but not fully complete for a mutating tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces format hints (TEAMID.bundle.id, sha256 fingerprints) that already live in the schema, and only marginally adds the either/or relationship between apple_json and ios_app_ids.

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 (write the Universal Links / App Links files under /.well-known/) and names the concrete artifacts (apple-app-site-association, assetlinks.json). This clearly separates it from neighbours like set_app_ads_txt or set_remote_config, which write different files.

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?

Explicitly lays out the two usage modes: supply ios_app_ids / android_package + android_sha256 and the files are built, or pass a whole file via apple_json / android_json. It also states the leave-out rule. It does not route against sibling tools (e.g. set_app_ads_txt) or state prerequisites, so not a 5.

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