update_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about what is updated, required permissions, reversibility, or side effects. For a mutation tool this is a severe gap.

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 two-word description is terse rather than concise; it is not wasteful but is drastically under-specified. Brevity here reflects missing information, not efficient front-loading.

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 a mutation tool with one required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It omits what is updated, how the id is used, and any operational context an agent would need.

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 0%, and the sole required parameter "id" is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about what the id refers to or whether other app fields can be changed.

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?

"Update app" restates the tool name and identifies a generic verb and resource, but gives no scope, target fields, or distinction from sibling update tools such as update_container, update_website, or update_settings. It is tautological rather than specific.

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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. An agent cannot tell from this text when update_app should be selected over other update_* tools.

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