Create app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It specifies the templates and mentions one behavioral prerequisite (react requires install_dependencies before previewing), which is helpful. Yet it does not describe side effects like files created, name collision behavior, or reversibility. This is a moderate disclosure for a scaffold 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence followed by a compact bullet-style list. It wastes no words and presents the template options in a scannable format. Every sentence adds information, making it appropriately sized.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, template choices, and one operational prerequisite. It does not mention post-creation steps (e.g., deployment) but the sibling tools fill that gap context. The information is sufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool without needing external clarification.

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%, but the description adds significant value by expanding each template option with a short explanatory blurb (e.g., 'static (Plain HTML/CSS/JS site. Zero dependencies, instant preview.)'). This goes beyond the enum names in the schema. The name parameter is already well documented in the schema, but the template details elevate the tool's usability.

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 clearly states the verb 'scaffold' and the resource 'a new app from a template', with a specific list of template types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_apps and delete_app, which are unrelated operations. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 implies when to use this tool (to create a new app) by describing its core function. It also provides a usage note for the react template ('Run install_dependencies before previewing'), giving actionable context. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it misses the highest bar.

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