update_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether the operation is a full replacement or partial patch, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. The lack of details is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, terse sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the minimal content it provides, though it lacks any structured breakdown of parameters or usage. It earns its place by stating the core purpose without unnecessary words.

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 tool with two parameters, including a nested object, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure or semantics of app_data, nor does it mention return values or behavior. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged, and critical details that an agent would need for correct invocation are missing.

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?

The input schema contains two parameters (app_id and app_data) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what app_data should contain or how it is applied (e.g., merged or replaced), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Update' and the resource 'application (app registration)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_application, delete_application, and get_application_by_id. It also specifies 'existing', implying the target must already exist, which is useful for selection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites explicitly stated. The phrase 'existing application' implies the user must have an app_id, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or comparison with create/delete/get tools.

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