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

The description discloses the special behavior of `regenerate_webhook_secret` (new secret returned only once in `webhook_secret_raw`), which is valuable beyond the schema. It also mentions scope (`org:manage`), same API/billing/rate limits, and the PATCH method. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context about the one-time secret display.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first line, then adds the critical webhook secret behavior, scope, and endpoint mapping. Every sentence earns its place, and the warning about not inventing paths is a useful guardrail.

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 10-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral nuance (one-time secret), scope, and endpoint. It doesn't describe the full response shape, but the schema covers parameters and the description covers the critical return value. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description's mention of `webhook_secret_raw`.

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 all 10 parameters. The description adds meaning for `regenerate_webhook_secret` (explaining the one-time return of the secret) but doesn't need to explain the others since the schema covers them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 updates the current app's settings, including webhook configuration, and explicitly maps to the OpenAPI operationId `updateApp` with PATCH /manage-org/app. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like updateOrganization and updateTemplate by naming the resource (app) and the endpoint.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (updating app settings) and explicitly warns not to invent other paths. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like getApp for reading or createApp for creating, but the scope and endpoint mapping make the usage context clear.

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