application_update

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial partial-update behavior and warns that tags are replaced wholesale rather than merged. This is meaningful behavioral context not available in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences with the core update semantics first and the tag gotcha second. Zero filler.

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 low-complexity update tool with an output schema, the description covers the main ambiguity (partial vs full update, tag merge vs replace). It could mention how null values behave, but this is a minor gap.

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 description adds real meaning for `tags` (whole-map replacement) and implies omitted fields are untouched. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not address the `null` semantics for clearing fields or detail `name`/`description` beyond their obvious names.

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 the action (Update), the resource (application), and the precise PATCH-like scope ('only the given fields'), which clearly separates it from application_create/delete/get. The behavior is immediately recognizable even without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly defines the update context: modifying selected fields of an existing application, not full replacement. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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