yc_get_editability

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that HTML metadata is parsed but not executed (bounded, no script execution) and warns that form exposure does not prove persistence — a meaningful interpretation caveat. Auth requirements and rate limits remain unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, parsing safety, and result-interpretation caveat. Front-loaded with the core action and zero 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. For a single-parameter read tool the description is nearly complete; the only real omission is guidance on sequencing with the sibling prepare/commit update tools.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden but says nothing about appUuid. The parameter name and UUID format/pattern in the schema are largely self-explanatory, so the gap is modest rather than crippling.

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: reads application permissions and the fields exposed by authenticated edit forms. An agent knows this is a read-only editability probe rather than a data fetch, though it never names a sibling to contrast against (e.g. yc_get_application).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. Implicitly it is a pre-flight check before prepare/commit update tools, but the description leaves that inference entirely to the agent.

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