panelica_node_js_apps_put_v1_nodejs_apps_id

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating the required scope 'apps:write' and explicitly warning 'Mutating: changes server state.' This goes beyond what the structured annotations alone provide. There is no contradiction with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action appears first, followed by HTTP method, category, scope, and side-effect warning. Each line earns its place and there is no repetitive or irrelevant text. This is an appropriately sized definition for an update endpoint.

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 two-parameter update call with no output schema, the description is functional but lean: it does not say what fields can be changed, what the response contains, or how to shape the body. The opaque 'body' parameter means an agent will likely need external API documentation to construct a valid request. Annotations cover safety traits and idempotency, which helps, but payload details are 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the primary parameter burden. The description adds no specific parameter-level meaning: it does not enumerate which Node.js app fields can be updated or how to structure the free-form request body. The body remains opaque, with the schema saying only 'Schema not statically declared — see API docs.'

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 the action ('Update') and resource ('Node.js app'), and the HTTP method PUT reinforces this. Among the Node.js app sibling tools, this is the only update/PUT endpoint, so it is distinguishable from create, delete, start, and stop variants. The phrase 'Update Node.js app' is somewhat generic but still clear.

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 intended use is implied by the HTTP method and resource category: this is for modifying an existing Node.js app. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating, deleting, restarting, or deploying an app. No when-not-to-use guidance or sibling tool references are present.

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