configure_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is reversible and executes immediately, giving key behavioral traits. It also clarifies that it is content-only (not affecting icon or webview), which helps set expectations for side effects.

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, compact sentence that packs purpose, reversibility, immediacy, and scope into a few words. Every clause earns its place, referencing the CLI and distinguishing from related tools without fluff.

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?

Given that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers the essential aspects: what it configures, reversibility, immediate execution, and scope limitations. The complexities are low (3 simple params), so the description is adequate. A minor gap is not specifying what the return value or confirmation looks like, but that's not critical for a simple config operation.

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 schema fully describes the parameters. The description adds some context by calling them 'content fields' but doesn't provide additional syntax or nuances beyond the schema. This meets the baseline 3 for 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 tool configures an app's content fields (name, base_url), which is specific and action-oriented. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning set_icon and noting webview injection as a dashboard concern, differentiating it from other configuration tools.

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 provides guidance on when to use this tool by aligning it with the CLI `apps update` command and explaining what it does not cover (icon, webview injection). It implicitly tells the agent that for those concerns, other tools (set_icon, dashboard) should be used, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives beyond set_icon.

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