agileconfig_update_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions editing existing apps but does not specify if the update is partial (only provided fields) or full replacement, whether permissions are required, or if changes are reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, listing key modifiable fields without extraneous information.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to mention return behavior, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., app must exist). For a complex update operation, more context is needed to guide the agent.

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%, so the input schema already documents parameters. The description redundantly lists some parameters (name, group, secret, etc.) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The description does not clarify usage patterns for the 'id' required field or the 'inheritancedApps' array.

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 verb '编辑' (edit) and the resource '已有应用的信息' (existing app info), listing specific fields like name, group, secret, enabled status, and inheritance settings. It differentiates from sibling tools like agileconfig_create_app and agileconfig_delete_app by focusing on updating existing apps.

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 implies usage for updating app information but lacks explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., app must exist), context (e.g., partial vs full update), or alternatives like create_app for new apps. No exclusionary criteria are mentioned.

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