add_application_private

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits such as mutation side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling. The return value is briefly mentioned but lacks detail on potential failure modes.

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, using a clear docstring format with a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or verbosity.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema), the description covers the primary inputs and what is returned. However, it could mention prerequisites like authentication or error scenarios. The output schema reduces the need for return value details, making it mostly complete.

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 adds meaningful context by explaining each parameter: repository URL format, base64-encoded key, passphrase handling, project type hint for Flutter, and optional team ID with admin requirement. This goes beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 adds a new application from a private repository to Codemagic, specifying the action, resource, and target. It distinguishes from sibling 'add_application' which likely handles public repos, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. It implicitly suggests private repo usage via the tool name, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or what prerequisites exist.

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