update_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core mutation (replace files) and the side effect of redeployment, which is good. However, it omits details such as whether existing files are permanently overwritten, any permission requirements, or what happens if the app does not exist. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys the essential action in under ten words. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, but the description is minimal for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage. It does not address prerequisites (e.g., app must exist), destructive implications beyond 'replace', or deployment process details. The tool has multiple parameters and side effects, yet the description covers only a fraction of the operational context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only hints at the 'files' parameter by saying 'Replace files', but it does not explain 'name' (which app to update) or 'message' (commit message). The file structure is also left undefined. The description adds marginal value but fails to meaningfully clarify the parameters.

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 and specifically states the tool's function: replacing files in an existing app and redeploying it. The verb 'replace' and resource 'existing app' clearly distinguish this from siblings like create_app (new app), delete_app (remove), and publish/unpublish (deploy state changes).

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 conveys clear context for use: it targets an existing app ('in an existing app'), which implies it is for updates rather than creation or deletion. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide explicit when/when-not guidance beyond that, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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