Create an application card

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and destructive, but the description adds valuable behavior: duplicate owned names are refused, no model-supplied approval flag exists, and unknown write outcomes must never be retried. This materially reduces risk of misuse.

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 front-loaded with the core scope and then delivers dense, non-redundant operational warnings. Every sentence carries distinct information needed for safe invocation.

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 one-parameter create operation with an output schema present, the description covers scope, exclusions, authentication, user confirmation, duplicate handling, approval constraints, and retry guidance. No critical operational information is missing.

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 0%, and the description does not restate the name parameter's format. However, it adds meaning by clarifying that the parameter is an app name/card and that owned-name duplicates are rejected. This partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a caller-owned app name/card') and immediately scopes the operation with 'only, not a release or publication.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_release and prepare_release.

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?

It states exclusions ('not a release or publication') and prerequisites ('terminal login', 'verified dev scope', 'exact user form confirmation'), giving practical when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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