update_app_info

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the mutation nature and one concrete behavior (passing null clears a secondary category), which is genuinely useful. It omits whether omitted optional fields are preserved or cleared (patch vs replace) and any permission/auth requirement for a write to a published app.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding, and the verb/resource is front-loaded. The 'Writes.' fragment is a slightly awkward opener but signals mutation immediately rather than wasting space.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 43% param coverage, this is thin. It never clarifies partial-update semantics, subcategory handling, or auth, which an agent needs to call a write tool safely.

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 43%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for primary_category (enum-style example ID) and secondary_category (null clears it), which complements the schema's own descriptions. However, the four subcategory parameters (primary/secondary_subcategory_one/two) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the surface 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?

States a specific verb and resource: set an appInfo's categories. The resource (appInfo categories) is distinct from neighbors like update_app_info_localization, update_app, and list_app_categories, though the terse 'Writes.' fragment adds little. An agent can tell what it modifies without opening the schema.

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 points to a source of valid values ('IDs from list_app_categories'), which is useful routing, and shows when to send null. But it gives no when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g. update_app, update_app_info_localization) and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.

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