manage_intune_macos_apps

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about deployment actions (assignments, updates, installation requirements), which helps clarify the tool's behavior beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, authentication needs, or specific destructive effects (e.g., data loss from 'remove' action).

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Manage macOS application deployment'). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by listing key actions explicitly).

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, destructive actions, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the high-level purpose but lacks details on return values, error handling, or specific use cases. With annotations providing safety info, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps for effective agent usage.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description mentions 'app assignments, updates, and installation requirements,' which loosely maps to parameters like 'assignmentGroups' and 'action' values, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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: managing macOS application deployment with specific actions like assignments, updates, and installation requirements. It specifies the resource (macOS apps) and scope (deployment management), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'manage_intune_windows_apps' or 'manage_intune_macos_compliance', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 sibling tools (e.g., 'manage_intune_windows_apps' for Windows apps or 'manage_intune_macos_devices' for device management), prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the title but not explicitly stated.

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