Perbarui aplikasi yang sudah live

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that passing validation immediately replaces the live version with no review, that the old version is automatically saved, and that rollback is possible via the web dashboard. This gives the agent a clear picture of the destructive yet recoverable 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?

The description is front-loaded with the mandatory prerequisite, then states the core action, and then explains the deployment and rollback consequences. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the required prerequisite, the effect, and the recovery path. It does not describe the return value of update_app itself, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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%, with both path and appId already described. The description reinforces that appId comes from list_my_apps and that path refers to the local folder, but it adds no substantially new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it overwrites an already-live app owned by this account with new code from a local folder. It clearly distinguishes this from a new submission by emphasizing 'SUDAH live' and by tying prerequisites to validate_project and list_my_apps.

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 explicitly instructs that validate_project must be called first and its result must be 'ok': true, and that appId comes from list_my_apps. It does not explicitly name submit_app as an alternative or state when not to use this tool, but the 'already live' scope strongly implies the boundary.

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