apps__update

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

The annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to existing attributes. It is not contradictory but adds no value beyond the 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 a single sentence with no redundant wording, making it highly concise. It front-loads the action and resource effectively. While very brief, it earns a high score for efficiency, though it sacrifices helpful detail.

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 complex nested body schema and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It doesn't explain how the id should be obtained, what the response looks like, or any important constraints (e.g., which attributes are optional). This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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 has near-complete descriptions for all parameters, including the nested body structure and attribute fields. The description itself mentions no parameter details, but since the schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—it neither helps nor hurts 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 the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'an app', which clearly identifies the operation. However, it lacks scope or distinguishing details from sibling update tools like builds__update, so it doesn't differentiate beyond the resource name.

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, no prerequisites (like having an app ID from a list call), and no exclusions. It simply states the operation without any contextual usage information.

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