Apply Android manifest configuration

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context: it 'mutates the manifest in place' and cautions to review the delta, especially for risky changes. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the in-place mutation and highlighting specific areas of concern.

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 at three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance and a risk warning. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity, the description connects it to the pipeline (decoded workspace, recompilation), sets prerequisites, and references the structured delta for review. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, making this complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only groups them thematically (component, permission, rendering), which is already implicit in the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Apply requested Flutter-related component, application, permission, and rendering changes') to a specific resource ('AndroidManifest.xml in a decoded workspace'). It also differentiates from the sibling tool analyze_injection_surface by noting that inspection alone should use that tool instead.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('only after reviewing the injection surface and generated classes') and when to use an alternative ('use analyze_injection_surface instead when only inspection is needed'). It also provides a post-usage guideline to 'review the structured delta before recompilation,' which is actionable.

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