update_app_actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('更新します' - updates) and gives a parameter example. It doesn't cover critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive mutation (likely yes, but unstated), permission requirements, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by an illustrative example. It's front-loaded with the core function. The example is somewhat lengthy but serves to clarify the complex 'actions' parameter structure. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'updates' entails behaviorally (e.g., overwrites existing actions?), what the return value is (success confirmation? error details?), or any side effects. The example helps with parameter format but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral and output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value: it mentions the 'filterCond' property for setting execution conditions and provides an example JSON structure. This doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, but meets the baseline since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'kintoneアプリのアクション設定を更新します' (updates action settings for a Kintone app). It specifies the verb ('更新します' - updates) and resource ('アクション設定' - action settings), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_app_settings' or 'update_app_customize', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing app admin permissions), compare it to similar tools like 'get_app_actions' or 'update_app_settings', or specify scenarios where it's appropriate. The example is purely illustrative of parameter structure, not usage context.

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