Configure app health checks

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). It discloses transactional single-write semantics, precisely what is preserved (access lists, tags, people scope, portal routes, enrolled node, no re-enrollment), how omitted/empty/zero values behave, reset semantics, and an authorization requirement verified in the write transaction.

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?

Tight and front-loaded, leading with the core mutation and transaction scope before edge-case rules. It is information-dense with near-zero waste, though several concepts (defaults, reset, proxy-only fields, auth) are packed into few sentences.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description fills the remaining behavioral gaps — preservation guarantees, default/reset rules, proxy scoping, and owner auth — leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

With 88% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: omitted fields retain stored value, empty/0 selects the default, reset restores defaults, and path/status-range/body_contains are proxy-only. That scoping and default logic is not fully derivable from the schema alone.

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 and resource — changing one app's health check — and scopes it to a single registry transaction, which contrasts implicitly with the read-only 'health' sibling. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling explicitly to seal the differentiation.

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?

Usage conditions are implied by 'Change only one app's health check' versus the read sibling, and preconditions are present ('Owner scope only', owner required for routed apps). However, it never explicitly says when to reach for this over alternatives like 'health', leaving selection to inference.

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