update-application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions modifying behavior and monitoring settings but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are immediate or require redeploy, what happens to unspecified settings (partial vs. full updates), or error handling for invalid inputs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. The second sentence adds useful context about behavior and monitoring. No redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for key settings).

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, response format, and error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 50% (only 'uuid' has a description). The description adds context by specifying 'health check configurations' and 'monitoring settings', which helps interpret the 'settings' object parameters. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., what 'health_check_scheme' expects) or constraints beyond the schema.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('settings of a specific application'), with specific examples ('health check configurations'). It distinguishes from siblings like get-application (read) and restart/start/stop-application (state changes), though not explicitly named.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the application UUID from get-application or list-applications), nor does it clarify if this is for configuration versus operational changes like restart-application.

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