Update application

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-annotation context: the applications:manage authorization requirement and the confirmation/polling lifecycle. It stops short of describing what the update replaces or failure/reversibility behavior.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers the required workflow and the permission requirement. Four tight sentences with little waste, though the opening sentence is somewhat dense and could be marginally trimmed.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: precondition sourcing, confirmation gating, post-call polling, and the required permission. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that expected_blueprint_version and expected_upstream_version are preconditions copied from get_application_installation rather than caller-selected targets, which disambiguates how those two required params must be sourced.

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 ("Queue the backend-selected newer immutable release for an owned managed application") and clarifies that versions are backend-selected, not caller-chosen. This semantically distinguishes it from siblings like install_application, rollback_application, and repair_application without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: first read get_application_installation, copy blueprint_version/upstream_version as preconditions, confirm, then poll installation and events. It names the prerequisite sibling tool and the follow-up tools, leaving no inference about how to sequence the call.

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