application_modify_current

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation behavior is known. The description adds value by explaining the return shape and the distinction between raw fields and untrusted_textais. It does not discuss auth, side effects, or rate limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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 brief, labeled sections (Purpose, Pass only fields, Returns) deliver maximum information with zero waste. The key usage rule is front-loaded and each sentence contributes unique value. Excellent structure.

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 is moderately complex with 13 optional parameters and nested objects. The description gives general editing guidance and return information, but parameter semantics are mostly missing. The presence of annotations and output schema helps, but the low schema description coverage means the description does not fully equip an agent to call it correctly without prior knowledge.

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 only 8%, leaving 12 of 13 parameters without explanations. The description's 'all fields optional' is already conveyed by the schema, and it provides no meaning for parameters like integration_types_config or event_webhooks_types. The agent would need external API knowledge to use these correctly.

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: 'Edit the bot/app application object' with a specific PATCH endpoint. This is a distinct verb-resource pair, and it is easy to differentiate from siblings like application_get_current (read) or application_modify_role_connection_metadata (different resource).

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 clear usage context: it is the tool for modifying the current application. 'Pass only fields you want to change' gives a practical invocation pattern. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the tool name and context make the appropriate use obvious.

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