Update App Configuration

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate mutation. The description confirms it updates and returns the modified object, which adds minimal additional context. No behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply are 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?

The description is two sentences but includes redundancy (e.g., 'App Marketplace records' appears twice) and repeats required parameter info already in the schema. More concise phrasing could improve it.

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?

Given 5 parameters (2 required) and nested objects, the description notes the tool returns 'the modified object on success' but lacks details on return format or handling of nested fields. The tool is a PATCH, so some completeness is adequate but could be enhanced.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 5 parameters (coverage 100%). The description only mentions required parameters (id, company_id) and the patch behavior, which is already evident from the PATCH endpoint. No extra meaning is added 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 tool updates an existing app configuration, using the verb 'update' and specifying the resource. It mentions patching behavior ('only the supplied fields are changed') and distinguishes from other update tools by its focus on app configurations. However, the term 'App Marketplace records' introduces slight ambiguity.

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 provides basic guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this to update an existing App Marketplace records') and lists required parameters (id, company_id). However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling update tools.

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