bunny_manage_mc_app

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, and the description adds a concrete consequence: 'Deleting removes the application and all associated resources.' This goes beyond the boolean annotation and is consistent with the declared destructive nature.

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 short sentences front-load the action, then the config fields, then the casing convention. Every sentence adds useful information with 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 a three- parameter CRUD tool with a nested config object and no output schema, it covers the essential invocation details: actions, required id context via schema, config fields, and destructive deletion behavior. Minor gaps are explicit required config fields and return values, but they do not block correct use.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by enumerating config fields (name, dockerImage, port, environmentVariables, regions, autoscaling settings) and the create/update casing distinction, pushing it above the schema alone.

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 starts with a clear action-resource statement: 'Create, update, or delete a Magic Container application.' It also lists the key config fields, making the scope concrete and distinguishing it from read-only siblings like bunny_get_mc_app and bunny_list_mc_apps.

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?

It provides explicit usage context for each action, including the important format rule ('For create use PascalCase, for update use camelCase'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the action scope is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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