Update the app knowledge map

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with 'a matching id/path is overwritten', but it stays ambiguous about whether the whole entry is replaced or merged field-by-field, and says nothing about failure behavior or what happens when no match exists.

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 tight sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded before the operation list; every clause maps to a distinct capability. The dense comma list is efficient but slightly harder to scan than a structured breakdown would be.

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 destructive, seven-parameter mutation with no output schema and no required fields, the definition covers the 'what can I change' question well but omits the operational essentials: which parameter selects the target entry, whether multiple operations can be combined in one call, and any indication of the result.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate; it names five of the seven parameters (note, testCases, automationSuite, environment, featureCoverage) which maps the operations to inputs. However it leaves sessionId and projectRoot entirely unexplained and adds no structural meaning (required id/title, coverage enum) beyond the schema itself.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (targeted app-map edits) and enumerates the exact edit kinds: note, test cases, automation suite, environment, feature coverage. The phrase 'without a rebuild' implicitly contrasts with the full build sibling, so an agent can distinguish this from qa_app_map_build without opening either schema.

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?

'Without a rebuild' implies the rebuild path exists elsewhere, which is useful routing, but the definition never states when to prefer this over qa_app_map_build, qa_suite_update, or qa_app_map_feature_scope, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g. that a sessionId or projectRoot context is expected).

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