update_app_customize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'updates' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing settings not mentioned. For a mutation tool with complex nested parameters, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could benefit from additional context.

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 complex mutation tool with 5 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, no output schema, and only 60% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or how to interpret the scope parameter's enum values in practical terms. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

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 60%, so the description should compensate but doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The description mentions 'JavaScript/CSS customization settings' which aligns with the 'desktop' and 'mobile' parameters in the schema, but provides no additional context about parameter relationships, constraints, or usage patterns.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('JavaScript/CSS customization settings for kintone app') in Japanese. It's specific about what gets updated but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_app_settings' or 'update_app_acl' that also modify app configurations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_app_customize' (for reading) or other update_* tools for different app aspects. The description implies it's for modifying customization settings but provides no context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases.

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