Promote visual to app

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing the atomic nature, preservation of other keys, OCC guard, new version creation with history, no-op for existing apps, and refusal to downgrade. It also clarifies idempotency via command_id, aligning with the idempotentHint annotation. No contradiction with 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 compact yet packed with essential information: action, effects, constraints, and alternatives. Each clause serves a purpose (atomicity, manifest behavior, versioning, no-op, downgrade refusal). No redundant or filler content.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core behavior, edge cases (no-op for already apps, downgrade refusal), and security/correctness aspects (OCC-guarded, history kept). An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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% for both parameters (name, command_id), each with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific semantics, but the schema already handles this, earning the baseline 3.

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: upgrading a 'visual' app to a full app by flipping the kind in the manifest. It uses specific verbs ('Upgrade', 'promote'), identifies the resource ('kind:"visual" app'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like save_app by explicitly noting demotion is handled elsewhere.

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 provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Already an app is a no-op' indicates the tool is only for visual apps, and 'downgrades are refused — demoting is an author edit (save_app with the manifest)' names the alternative tool for demotion. This clears up potential confusion with save_app.

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