Configure Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Update' but does not disclose whether this is a partial update, permission requirements, effects on existing settings, or response behavior. The additional context about deep link resolution is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with no 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 two sentences: the first directly states the action and key examples, the second explains the purpose. It is front-loaded, avoids redundancy, and every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 has 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to clarify update semantics (e.g., whether only provided fields are changed), success/failure behavior, or the operational impact of these settings beyond deep link resolution. This leaves a significant gap for an agent to invoke it safely.

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%, so all 7 parameters are already documented in the schema with individual descriptions. The tool description lists some parameter types (e.g., iOS bundle identifier, Android package name) but adds no extra syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline score of 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 action 'Update platform-specific configuration for a ULink project' and enumerates specific attributes (iOS bundle identifier, Android package name, deeplink schemas, SHA-256 fingerprints). This distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like update_project by focusing on platform-specific settings.

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?

The description implies usage for mobile platform configuration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_project. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool suggestions, so the usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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