Terbitkan aplikasi baru ke Bedengan App Hub

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that publication is immediate with no admin review, that apps pass through structure and secret scanning, that rejection errors always explain what to fix, and that duplicate subdomains are rejected. It does not mention authentication or the exact success response, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first gives the prerequisite, the second clarifies new-app-only submission, the third explains rejection handling, and the fourth distinguishes update_app. There is no filler, and the information is logically ordered.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description covers the prerequisite, validation flow, immediate publication behavior, error recovery, and sibling distinction. The main gap is that it does not describe what a successful submit_app call returns, which would be useful given there is no output schema.

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 already provides 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning—such as treating 'path' as the local project folder and 'subdomain' as the requested, unused subdomain—but it does not substantially improve on the schema's parameter explanations.

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 that submit_app publishes a new local project as a brand-new app to Bedengan App Hub, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from update_app by explicitly saying already-live apps must use update_app instead, so there is no confusion with siblings.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call validate_project first and ensure its result is 'ok': true, use submit_app only for new apps, and use update_app for apps that are already live. It also warns that an already-used subdomain will be rejected, preventing an obvious misuse.

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