create_scoped_app

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the WRITE_ENABLED precondition and the scope uniqueness requirement, which are not in annotations. It doesn't disclose return values or side effects, but it adds operational context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence provides necessary information: the action and the critical prerequisites/constraints. No redundant or vague wording.

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 an 8-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the most critical operational constraints (WRITE_ENABLED, scope uniqueness) and the full schema provides parameter details. It does not mention return values or post-creation behavior, but the annotations and schema fill most gaps.

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% with descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a slightly more specific naming pattern for scope (x_<vendor>_<appname>) but otherwise relies on the schema to convey parameter meaning.

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') and the resource ('scoped application in App Studio'), using a specific verb-noun pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_scoped_apps and update_scoped_app by focusing on creation and adding the scope prefix pattern.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and a naming constraint (scope must be unique and follow x_<vendor>_<appname>), which are conditions for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the domain is clear enough for an agent to choose this over list/get/update.

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