app_inject_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses paywall defaults, credit fallback values, and the need to keep pack amounts in sync with the server-side PACK_MAP, but it omits mutation side effects, overwrite behavior, permissions, and auth requirements expected of a config-injection tool.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose, then provides the most important parameter-specific details. The paywall strategy and credit default notes are reasonably concise, though the enum formatting could be slightly clearer.

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?

For a 16-parameter configuration mutation with no annotations and no schema property descriptions, the description is materially incomplete. It partially covers paywall and credit settings but does not explain what most fields represent or how the injection affects the scaffolded app; the output schema only covers return values.

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% across 16 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains paywall_strategy values and some credit defaults, but leaves most parameters such as posthog_key, privacy_url, supabase_url, product identifiers, and revenuecat_key undocumented.

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: filling in a scaffolded app's AppConfig and StoreKit tokens. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like config_set, setup_services, or app_scaffold beyond the 'scaffolded app' context.

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 phrase 'scaffolded app's' implies the prerequisite that scaffolding must already exist, and the paywall_strategy explanation gives some inline guidance. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as config_set or setup_services, nor does it state when not to use it.

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