transfer_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing permission requirements (owner or team admin), recipient requirements (must have Heroku account), and the ownership change nature. It doesn't mention potential side effects like billing changes or access revocation, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 efficiently structured with three clear usage scenarios, parameter requirements, and permission prerequisites in three well-organized sentences. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about usage scenarios, permissions, and requirements. It could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects or confirmation of successful transfer, but covers the essential context well.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing the app ownership requirement and recipient account requirement already covered in schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('transfer ownership') and resource ('Heroku application'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_app, rename_app, or get_app_info. It explicitly defines the tool's function beyond just the name.

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 explicit usage scenarios (transfer to another user, move to a team, organizational changes) and prerequisites (current user must be app owner or team admin). It clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_app or rename_app.

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