make_app_update_txn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('create') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention that this is a write/mutation operation, potential side effects (e.g., updating app logic), permissions needed, rate limits, or what the output looks like (transaction object vs. sent transaction).

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 complex mutation tool with 16 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the transaction's purpose (updating app logic), typical use cases, required inputs beyond the schema, or what the agent should expect as a result, leaving significant gaps.

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 the schema fully documents all 16 parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not even hinting at core parameters like 'appIndex' or 'approvalProgram'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does all the work.

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 'Create an application update transaction' states the action (create) and resource (application update transaction), which is clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'make_app_create_txn' or 'make_app_delete_txn' that also create application-related transactions, leaving the specific 'update' purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing app to update), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'make_app_call_txn' or 'make_app_create_txn', leaving the agent without usage context.

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