Update application

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by stating that status changes are automatically logged to the timeline. This is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences plus an inline example. It is front-loaded with the core action, concise, and every part adds value without waste.

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 19 parameters and moderate schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks explanation of partial updates, error conditions, or return values. The example provides some context but does not fully cover the tool's complexity.

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 68%, with many parameters already described in the schema. The description provides a helpful example but does not add new semantic information for individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update fields of an application' with explicit verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_application, list_applications, and get_application via the context of modifying an existing application.

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?

Description provides a direct hint: 'get the id from list_applications' indicating prerequisite. It also notes automatic timeline logging for status changes. However, it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for related actions like adding notes.

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