Change the application's settings

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description explains exactly what is destructive — the old subdomain stops working immediately — and warns to confirm with the user and show the full URL. It also discloses deferred effects (running app changes on next deploy) and the side effect of re-analyzing the project when rootDirectory changes, which is real value beyond the annotation flags.

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?

A single dense sentence with parentheticals, but it is front-loaded with the full list of changeable settings and every clause carries information (destructive warning, deferral semantics, null meaning). Slightly parenthetical-heavy, yet nothing is filler.

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 a three-optional-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, no output schema, and destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the destructive consequences, the timing of effects, and the re-analysis behavior. There is no significant gap an agent would need to fill before calling it.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: what null means for rootDirectory (whole project), that subdomain invalidates the old address instantly, and that deployOnPush only matters for GitHub apps. It doesn't clarify the subdomain format beyond the schema's example, but the added semantics clearly exceed the baseline.

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 names the specific verb (change) and enumerates exactly which settings can be modified (subdomain, deployOnPush, rootDirectory), which cleanly separates it from the read-only `app_settings` sibling by implication. It stops short of explicitly naming the read counterpart or other address-related tools like `check_address`, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives concrete usage context per field: the subdomain change requires asking the user first and showing the full URL, and the rootDirectory change triggers re-analysis with effect deferred to the next deploy. That is clear when-to-use guidance, but no alternatives (e.g. `check_address` for validating a name before setting it) are named.

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