app_software_version_create

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mention of eventual public impact adds moderate context. However, it does not elaborate on immediate behavioral effects, side effects, or required permissions.

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 concise (two sentences plus a spec link). The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds relevant workflow context. Minor: the spec link could be omitted if not actionable.

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 creation tool with a complex body parameter and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the structure of the 'body' payload or list constraints. The agent would need external documentation to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'body' has a description, 'appSoftwareId' lacks one). The description does not compensate by explaining parameters or providing examples. The free-form 'body' object is left completely underspecified.

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 action ('Create a new version') and the resource ('for an app-software'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get, list, and update. The mention of 'PUBLIC IMPACT' adds context but is not essential for purpose clarity.

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 its siblings (e.g., update, get). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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