update_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a write operation. Beyond the terse lead word "Writes.", it says nothing about required permissions/roles, whether the update is partial or full-replacement, reversibility, or rate limits — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

It is a single short sentence that front-loads the mutation nature and the affected fields with no filler. The standalone "Writes." opener is slightly awkward and does not meaningfully add information, keeping it from a 5.

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 parameterized mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits update semantics (partial vs. full), permission requirements, and how it differs from the other update_* siblings. An agent has enough to attempt a call but not enough to do so confidently or to pick the right tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents app_id, primary_locale, and the content_rights_declaration enum. The description restates the two optional fields but adds no format, default, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb ("Update") and names the exact updatable fields (content rights declaration, primary locale) on an app resource, which is more specific than most siblings. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling update_app_info, leaving the 'app-level App Information' framing ambiguous rather than differentiating.

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 the very similar update_app_info or update_app_info_localization siblings. The 'and/or' hints that one or both fields may be supplied, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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