Link an app idea to its released app

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

Annotations only say non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description goes well beyond them: it discloses the post-mutation state (project becomes kind mine/competitor), that keywords and history are preserved, that the store listing name replaces the idea's name (an implicit rename side effect), and the two rejection 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?

Three tight sentences: scenario, effects, failure modes, in that order. No filler and the usage trigger is front-loaded ahead of the side effects.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description tells the agent what the resulting state looks like and what causes failure, which is everything needed to call a three-parameter mutation 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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates them (app id/package/URL, mine vs competitor). It adds only marginal framing — that projectId refers to a brainstorm project — so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: linking a brainstorm app idea (no store app yet) to its App Store id / Play package / store URL. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like brainstorm_project, add_app, and update_project by naming the exact transition it performs.

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 opening clause gives a clear usage trigger ('An app idea ... is now published') and the closing sentence names explicit failure conditions ('Fails for projects that already have an app or when the app is already tracked'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool an agent should call when those preconditions fail, which keeps it from a 5.

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