import_app

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description adds little beyond that: it does not address duplicate handling despite idempotentHint=false, nor does it explain side effects, required fields, or what happens when the same app reference is imported again.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. However, the clause "without inventing awards" is cryptic without context, slightly reducing clarity despite the efficient structure.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation or explain non-idempotent behavior, leaving an agent without enough detail to invoke it confidently.

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 five parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema gap, but it mentions only Android/iOS references and says nothing about name, tags, sourceUrl, description, or which fields are required. It does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Add a curated app reference." This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings such as search_apps and get_app, though the phrase "without inventing awards" is domain-specific and does not itself clarify the core purpose.

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 sentence "Use for your own apps or Android/iOS references" gives some usage context, but it does not explain when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as search_apps, get_app, or import_recording. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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