update_app_endpoint

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation but non-destructive nature is known. The description adds the common use-case context but does not disclose further behavioral details such as whether updates are partial/full replacements or what effects changes have on existing endpoints.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes useful operational information.

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?

The description handles the common exposedColumns scenario well, but with eight parameters, zero parameter descriptions, and no output schema, it is incomplete for general endpoint updates. It lacks guidance on fields like name, slug, allowedMethods, isActive, or organizationId.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for endpointId and exposedColumns by naming their source tools, but the remaining six parameters receive no semantic guidance beyond their names.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Change an existing endpoint'. It also highlights the most common purpose, setting exposedColumns, which distinguishes this from create_app_endpoint and other update tools.

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 gives concrete usage guidance by explaining the most common scenario and explicitly instructing where to obtain endpointId and columnIds. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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