appcrane_update_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains partial updates ('Only includes fields you pass; omitted fields are left alone'), how to clear a string field (empty string), and token encryption ('Stored encrypted (AES-256-GCM)'). It also indicates the return shape. Missing are side effects like triggering a redeploy or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every phrase adds value: the verb 'patch', immediate use cases, the scoping statement, clearing instructions, and return reference. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, referencing appcrane_get_app for return shape is appropriate. The description covers the core behavior (partial update, clearing fields). However, given the tool's complexity (16 params), it could explain interactions or constraints (e.g., required slug but not other required fields) but is adequate overall.

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 low (38%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for several parameters (github_url, token, branch, category, visibility, resource limits) but fails to cover many others (name, slug, domain, description, source_type, public_access, frame_ancestors, image_retention). The added value is moderate but incomplete.

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 identifies the tool as a patching operation for existing apps, listing specific use cases (fix github_url, change branch, rotate token, etc.) and distinguishing it from general app management by noting it handles 'anything you would otherwise need direct DB access for.' The verb 'patch' contrasts with other sibling tools like appcrane_create_app.

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?

Explicit use cases are given ('fix a missing github_url... change branch... rotate the github_token...'), providing strong when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives (e.g., appcrane_set_app_meta for metadata changes) or prerequisites, so it falls short of a 5.

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