appcrane_set_app_icon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool replaces any existing icon, requires app-admin or owner permissions, and mentions a 500 KB size limit. While it doesn't detail side effects or rollback options, the provided information is sufficient for safe usage.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes necessary context: usage guidelines, format options, alternative approach, and authorization requirements. No superfluous text.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters. It does not describe the return value (e.g., success/error), but for a setter tool this is acceptable. Overall, it provides a complete understanding for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 covers all three parameters (slug, base64, format) with descriptions. The description adds practical value: it clarifies that base64 can include or omit the data URL prefix, specifies the max decoded size, and explains format determines the file extension. This enhances usability beyond the schema alone.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set the tile icon for an app' and specifies where the icon appears. It distinguishes the tool from the alternative of committing a repo icon, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool ('when the icon needs to change without a redeploy, or when the source isn't in the repo') and when not to ('For repo-tracked icons prefer committing public/icon.png to the repo'). This provides clear usage guidance.

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