cicd_fluent_app

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

The description explicitly warns 'CHANGES INSTANCE STATE', which aligns with and reinforces the destructiveHint=true annotation. It also adds behavioral context beyond the schema by noting authentication requirements and that these are instance-mutating operations via sn_cicd. It does not detail side effects or irreversibility, but given the annotations, this is adequate.

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 four sentences and front-loads the core purpose and state-change warning. It packs essential contextual rules—app identification, Fluent project defaults, rollback requirement, and auth—without filler or repetition of the full schema. Every sentence contributes operational value.

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 14-parameter tool and no output schema, the description covers the key non-obvious behaviors: action types, state mutation, app identification modes, defaulting behavior, rollback's mandatory version, and authentication. The schema already documents individual parameter details, so this high-level guidance is sufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter logic not fully obvious from individual schema descriptions: 'inside a Fluent project both appSysId and appVersion default from now.config.json/package.json, and outside one both must be passed explicitly'. It also restates the rollback appVersion requirement, consolidating important conditional behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a ServiceNow app-repo CI/CD operation via the sn_cicd API', and enumerates the exact action types: 'install, publish, or rollback'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_fluent_app or deploy_fluent_app, which target different stages of the app lifecycle.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: how app identity and version are resolved inside vs. outside a Fluent project, when appVersion is mandatory, and that auth is required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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