add_application

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation), openWorldHint=true (external side effects), idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description aligns and adds detail: it fetches metadata, computes visibility score, links to workspace, and triggers plan cap usage. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining what side effects occur, without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then key side effects. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the process, the second highlights a critical business constraint (plan cap). There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 4 required parameters and no output schema. The description explains the internal steps (fetch, compute, link) and the plan cap implication, giving a good sense of what happens. It does not mention return value or failure cases (e.g., duplicate app), but given the simplicity and available annotations, this is adequate. A 4 is justified for providing a clear behavioral model.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter well. The description mentions 'store bundle ID' which maps to app_id, but does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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: 'Track a new mobile application by its store bundle ID'. It specifies the resource (mobile application), the verb (track), and the mechanism (store bundle ID). It distinguishes from siblings like add_competitor or track_keywords by focusing on app tracking and the subsequent steps (metadata fetch, score computation, workspace link).

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 communicates when to use this tool (to track a new app) and provides critical context: 'Counts against the plan app cap' implies a constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools indicate other add operations (add_competitor), and the description's specificity makes the use case clear.

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