Update an app

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the field list: it does not say whether omitted fields are preserved, whether changing store_url affects live links, or what side effects the update has.

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 front-loaded sentence with no boilerplate or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity partly reflects missing content rather than tightly packed 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?

For an 8-parameter mutation with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks partial-update semantics, idempotency guidance, and any explanation of how the update affects published apps or related resources.

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 25%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps “store destination” to store_url and “coverage mode” to device_matching_mode. It leaves name, platform, bundle_id, timezone semantics, idempotency_key, and the enum values unexplained.

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 (update an app) and names several updatable dimensions: metadata, store destination, timezone, and coverage mode. This distinguishes it from sibling mutations like create_app and archive_app, but it omits the required app_id and does not fully scope the operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_app, create_app, or archive_app, and no mention of prerequisites, ownership requirements, or whether this is a partial update. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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