optimizer_more_optionsGenerate additional app listing options next to existing ones for a project, with optional creative direction and a count of 1–10, to expand ASO draft choices.
Generate additional listing options next to the existing ones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | How many more options. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id (from get_overview). | |
| directions | No | Optional creative direction for the AI, e.g. "emphasise offline use". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-repeatable external generation. The description only adds that results sit 'next to the existing ones', which hints at append-vs-replace behavior, but says nothing about AI cost/latency, whether results persist, or whether save/choose calls are required afterward.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the key notion (additional, alongside existing) front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.
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?
This is a non-idempotent generative tool with no output schema, and the description never says what comes back (option objects? identifiers?), where they land, or that a follow-up optimizer_save_option/optimizer_choose is expected. Given the dense optimizer_* family and the openWorld annotation, this leaves too much for the agent to guess.
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% — count, projectId and directions are all documented in the schema, including the example creative direction. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so 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?
It states a verb and an object (generate additional listing options), but 'options' and 'listing' are domain jargon not defined anywhere, and with ten other optimizer_* siblings the description gives no clue how this differs from optimizer_start or optimizer_pick_phrase. The purpose is inferable but not sharply distinguishable.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus optimizer_start (initial generation) or optimizer_save_option (persisting a result), nor any prerequisites. The phrase 'next to the existing ones' weakly implies it is a follow-up call, but nothing is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.