Update Store Application

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the mutative, long-running nature, blocking behavior, default timeout, and potential impacts like altered behavior, table modifications, and customization overwrites. This is highly transparent.

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 and well-structured: a brief purpose sentence, bold 'IMPORTANT' warnings, and a clear usage hint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers key aspects: mutative, long-running, blocking, and risks. It lacks explicit mention of return values on success/failure, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the operation.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the source of 'app_id' (search_store_apps) and 'version' (get_app_details), and clarifies the timeout range and default, going beyond the schema.

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 the resource 'installed ServiceNow store application', specifying 'to a newer version'. It distinctly separates this tool from siblings like 'install_store_app' or 'get_app_details'.

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 clear context: use to update apps, mentions prerequisite to find apps via 'search_store_apps with tab_context updates', and advises testing on sub-production. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, though the warnings imply caution.

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