update_scoped_app

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

Annotations already indicate write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the 'WRITE_ENABLED=true' requirement, which is a useful behavioral constraint not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise and clear, though it could be slightly expanded to include the idempotent or partial update nature without losing conciseness.

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 the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite, but does not address validation, side effects, or what the tool returns. Sibling tools are not referenced for contrast.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'fields' is an object of updatable fields). No additional semantics added.

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 'Update an existing scoped application', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_scoped_app (creation) and get_scoped_app (read). No 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 mentions a clear prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true'), which helps the agent know when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_scoped_app for new apps, though that is implied by the name and context.

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