modify_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It says 'change it' implying mutation but does not disclose destructive potential, authentication needs, rate limits, or the nature of the asynchronous task. The agent lacks information about side effects or expected behavior.

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 concise: one sentence with an actionable note on polling. It front-loads the purpose and workflow without unnecessary words.

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 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and return type but lacks details on result interpretation, error cases, and the task lifecycle. It is adequate but leaves notable 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds generic context but no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents both parameters sufficiently.

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 tool modifies a Kleap app's AI with specific examples (edit copy, add section, fix bug) and indicates it returns a task. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_app or update operations.

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 mentions polling check_task but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer context from sibling names.

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