create_app_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or if it modifies existing resources. This is a significant gap for a creation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Russian, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations and sibling differentiation.

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?

Given the complexity of creating an app structure (implied mutation), no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'structure' means, the return value, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (app_id, app_name, description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Создать структуру нового приложения' (Create structure of a new application) states a clear verb ('create') and resource ('structure of a new application'), but it's vague about what 'structure' entails compared to siblings like 'create_generic_app' or 'create_app'. It doesn't specify if this is for scaffolding, configuration, or something else, making it less distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_generic_app' or 'create_app' (implied from siblings). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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