builds__app_encryption_declaration__set

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the operation's name, such as whether this replaces an existing declaration or any required app state. There is no contradiction with 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 one succinct sentence followed by the endpoint. Every word contributes, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 is a simple relationship setter with annotations and full schema coverage, but the description omits potential side effects (e.g., replacing current declaration) and prerequisites. No output schema exists, and the response behavior is not mentioned, so there is room for more context.

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%; both id and body include descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, and the body description only references an external Apple schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('app encryption declaration linked to a build'), and includes the endpoint. This differentiates it from the sibling getter builds__app_encryption_declaration__get.

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 implies use when assigning an app encryption declaration to a build, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. The schema's id description ('ID from the matching list call') provides a minor prerequisite hint, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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