Update app details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the set of mutable fields and the 'and/or' hint that updates may be partial, but it says nothing about permission requirements, the edit/commit transaction model typical of Play APIs, or what happens when no field is supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the mutable-field list is stated immediately. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description covers the core purpose and partial-update semantics but omits dry-run behavior, permission/auth context, and the transactional edit model an agent would need to call this 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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates somewhat by enumerating the updatable fields (default_language, contact_email, contact_phone, contact_website). It does not, however, explain validate_only, package_name defaulting, or the format constraints on email/phone/website beyond what the schema already encodes, so it adds only marginal meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Updates the app's default language and/or contact email, phone and website'), so the agent knows exactly what is being changed. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_app_details or clarify how it relates to other listing/app mutation tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling get_app_details as the read counterpart, and no explanation of the dry-run workflow that the schema's validate_only parameter enables. The agent must infer context entirely from the name and annotations.

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