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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the load and does so well: it discloses PATCH semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'), a destructive replacement ('the object you pass replaces the old links'), an immutability constraint ('kind... cannot be changed'), and the ownership requirement. It stops short of describing return values or failure modes.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the mutable targets and followed by the constraint and the escape hatch to publish_app. Slightly list-heavy but no 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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, partial-update behavior, ownership, immutability, and the alternative tool. It omits only response shape and error semantics, which the missing output schema leaves undocumented.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: whole-object replacement semantics for links and the fact that kind is a validation check rather than an updatable field. Those nuances justify moving above baseline.

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 ('Change listing details of an app you own') and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable. An agent can distinguish this from update_app_html (different resource) and publish_app (files) 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 routing rule: 'To change the files, call publish_app with the slug.' It also states the ownership precondition ('an app you own') and the field-scoping rule. It does not mention the closely-named sibling update_app_html or any error/precondition failure behavior.

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