zmp_create_app

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the generated stack, which tells the agent what it gets, but says nothing about filesystem side effects, whether an existing targetDir is overwritten, or any auth/permission needs for a tool that writes a project tree.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the distinguishing stack details packed compactly. No filler sentences.

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 explains what is produced but omits overwrite/error behavior and expected return, leaving the agent to infer the post-conditions of scaffolding.

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% and all five parameters (including the optional appId and the template enum) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Scaffold) and resource (new Zalo Mini App project) plus the exact stack produced (React 18, ZAUI, Vite, Dark Mode zero-flicker). This clearly separates it from build/deploy/validate siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 word "new" implies this is for fresh projects rather than existing ones, giving weak implied guidance. There is no explicit statement of prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives such as zmp_validate_project or zmp_build for already-scaffolded projects.

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