crosspad_apps_update

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

The description accurately reflects the destructiveHint annotation but adds no new behavior beyond what annotations already provide (it doesn't explicitly warn that the action is destructive/changes state). With destructiveHint=true already present, the description's silence on consequences is acceptable but doesn't add value. The update_all clearly implies sweeping changes, but the description doesn't warn about scope/impact beyond what the openWorldHint implies.

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, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and the two modes; the second sentence encodes the critical exclusivity constraint. Every sentence earns its place and the critical usage warning is front-loaded.

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 tool with an existing output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations present, and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is complete. The one gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention that updating apps is a mutating/destructive operation, which might warrant reinforcement given the destructiveHint annotation. Overall a strong, complete description.

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 the schema documents all parameters. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity relationship between app_name and update_all and by making the platform parameter's role implicit context. It goes beyond just restating the schema by tying the two optional params into a clear either-or contract.

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 verb (update), the resource (installed apps on a platform), and the two operational modes (single app via app_name, or all apps via update_all). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crosspad_apps_install/remove/sync, which handle other lifecycle operations.

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 states the exactly-one-of constraint: set app_name OR update_all=true, and declares that supplying both or neither is an error. This gives the agent clear, precise guidance on valid invocation patterns, which is excellent for a tool with mutually exclusive parameters.

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