create_mobile_app_config

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already indicate. The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals a write operation, and the '[Write]' tag in the description merely reinforces that without adding details about side effects, uniqueness constraints, or what happens to existing configurations. It does not contradict annotations, but provides minimal extra value.

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, direct sentence plus a short marker. It is front-loaded with the key information (action and object) and contains no filler, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple create operation with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but not misleading. However, it lacks any context about what a mobile app configuration entails, how it relates to sibling tools like list_mobile_app_configs, or any constraints on the fields. This is acceptable for a basic tool but leaves room for improvement.

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 schema already documents 'name' and 'branding_color' with descriptions, covering 67% of parameters. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information, so it relies on the schema. Since coverage is moderate and the description is silent, a baseline of 3 is appropriate—neither enhanced nor compensated.

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: 'Create a new mobile app configuration.' This uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('mobile app configuration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_mobile_app_configs and get_mobile_app_config, which have different purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_mobile_applet or create_mobile_layout. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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