Update application settings

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

Annotations establish the mutation/safety profile, and the description substantially adds to it: only differing fields are transmitted, the response is a from->to diff per change, a hard boundary excludes secrets/limits/compose files, and the delayed-effect deploy timing is disclosed. These are non-obvious traits an agent cannot derive from the schema or 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?

The field-set statement and diff-return behavior are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (exclusions, dry_run, deploy timing). The long comma-separated field list is dense but functional rather than redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by explaining the from->to change report. For a 14-parameter mutation tool with an idempotent, non-destructive profile, the behavioral picture is nearly complete; only auth/permission requirements are unstated.

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 100%, so every one of the 14 parameters is already documented in the schema (domains syntax, build_pack enum meanings, base_directory examples, null-clears-description, etc.). The description merely enumerates the same field names without adding new format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (application settings) and immediately scopes it to an enumerated safe subset of fields. It distinguishes itself from create_application, restart_application, and deploy by defining exactly which settings it mutates and which it cannot touch.

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?

Gives clear operative guidance: use `dry_run: true` to preview, and changes take effect on the next deploy (with domains requiring redeploy/restart for proxy labels). It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling alternative or say when to use this tool over e.g. restart_application or deploy.

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