Create an application version

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: verify_image makes a bad image fail at registration rather than deployment, and resource units/memory constraints define server sizing. It does not contradict the openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, and while it does not discuss auth or rollback, the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by constraints and recommendations. Every sentence adds either a precondition, a conversion rule, or a best practice, so the description is appropriately sized.

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 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious prerequisites, resource constraints, verification behavior, and tag strategy, while the schema handles parameter details. It does not describe response shape or failure modes, but this is not necessary for invoking the tool successfully, so the definition is nearly complete.

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, and the description adds extra meaning: the registry-pull precondition, the 1024 cpu units = 1 vCPU conversion, and the advice to set verify_image on the first version. These details make parameter choices more actionable even though some duplicate the schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: “Register a container image as a deployable version of an application,” which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like edgegap_create_app or edgegap_deploy. The title and description align and scope the operation to version registration rather than app creation or deployment.

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 context: use it to register an already-pushed image and states a precondition (“The image must already be pushed to a registry that Edgegap can pull from”). It offers operation-specific recommendations (verify_image on first version, avoid latest tag) but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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