Deploy (register or update) an app and pay for it

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the signing identity (Flux ID), the payment source (payment address), the FLUX spend, and precisely what the dry-run returns without spending. It stops short of covering failure/error behavior, idempotency, or gas/fee nuances, but the critical destructive-and-payment profile is fully and honestly disclosed.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the confirm gate, with the plan-vs-execute distinction and follow-up call each earning their place. Slightly dense but no wasted filler.

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 high-complexity, nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behaviors an agent needs: the confirm gate, what the plan returns, the payment implication, and the next call. It could say more about the returned txid/plan fields or failure modes, but it is largely sufficient.

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 67%, so the schema already documents confirm and most nested spec fields (expire, repotag, containerData, etc.). The description reinforces confirm's semantics and adds the 'plan = price, balance, warnings' return shape, but adds no meaning for the many nested spec/enterprise fields beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific verb chain (validate, quote, sign, broadcast, pay) and resource (app specification), making it unmistakably distinct from siblings like flux_validate_spec, flux_quote_app, and flux_build_spec. It also states the register-new vs update-existing scope. An agent can identify exactly what this tool does 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 clearly explains the confirm=true (execute and pay) vs confirm=false (dry-run plan, spends nothing) dichotomy, and prescribes the follow-up call to flux_wait_for_app with the returned txid. It does not explicitly contrast against flux_validate_spec or flux_quote_app as separate preflight steps, so the routing to alternatives is implicit rather than spelled out.

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