apps__update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and path, but gives no additional behavioral context such as partial-update semantics, authentication needs, or expected response. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded: 'Update an app.' followed by the endpoint. There is no filler. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but as a concise action statement it is well structured.

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 has a nested JSON:API body, no output schema, and a very large sibling tool set, yet the description only states the endpoint. It does not clarify that the body.data.id must likely match the path id, whether the update is partial or full, what the response contains, or how this tool differs from app_infos__update and app_store_versions__update. These gaps are not filled by the schema or annotations.

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 both 'id' and 'body' documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the endpoint path. This matches the baseline for a tool where the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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: 'Update an app' with the endpoint '[PATCH /v1/apps/{id}]'. This clearly identifies the tool as operating on an App object and distinguishes it from list/get operations. However, it does not specify which attributes or aspects of the app are updatable, leaving some ambiguity versus other app-related update tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention related tools like apps__get, apps__list, or app_infos__update, nor does it provide any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the verb 'Update', which is implied by the tool name.

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