Create an app

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

The description adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return payload: a publishable key plus a one-time app-scoped management key, which signals that a secret is issued and will not be retrievable later. That is a meaningful behavioral fact an agent needs. It does not, however, cover error behavior or permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the return contract second. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 7-parameter mutation with 4 required fields and no output schema, the description covers the return shape but leaves most required inputs and the meaning of store_url/bundle_id unexplained. It is adequate to identify the tool but thin for correct invocation.

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 14%, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It only echoes the platform enum ('iOS or Android') and says nothing about required inputs like bundle_id format, store_url, timezone, or the device_matching_mode/idempotency_key semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (create an app) and narrows it to the iOS/Android platform scope, plus notes it is the programmatic path ('without the web UI'). It is clear against siblings like update_app and archive_app, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 the web UI' implies the intended context (API-driven provisioning) but the description never states prerequisites, when to prefer this over other flows, or what to do on retry. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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