mcp-cloudron

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a mutation operation ('Update'), mentions the return format ('Returns 200 OK with updated app config and restart requirement flag'), and hints at side effects (restart requirement). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one describing the return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating behavioral aspects.

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 moderately complete. It covers the action and return format but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or side effects beyond the restart flag. Given the complexity of updating app configuration, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing configuration aspects ('environment variables, memory limits, and access control settings'), which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's already in the structured fields.

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 specific action ('Update application configuration') and resources involved ('environment variables, memory limits, and access control settings'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cloudron_get_app (read-only) or cloudron_control_app (start/stop operations). It provides a comprehensive overview of what the tool does.

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 like cloudron_control_app or cloudron_get_app, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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