create_app

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

Annotations only indicate that the operation is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds that the operation creates a scoped app entity and that endpoints/API keys are left for later steps. This aligns with annotations and provides workflow context beyond the structured fields. It could say more about side effects, but the main behavior is disclosed.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and followed by a brief next-step clause. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple creation operation with fully described schema parameters and no nested objects or output schema, so the description carries a modest burden. It explains what an app is and that endpoint/API-key setup follows. A small gap is that it does not state what is returned, such as the newly created app id, which an agent may need for subsequent steps.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to name and projectId through 'named API surface' and 'boards of a project,' but it does not add details like idempotency, name uniqueness, or the organizationId default. It provides no meaningful semantic value 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an app' and defines it as 'a named API surface over the boards of a project, for an external frontend.' This clearly distinguishes it from project/board/item creation tools. The phrase 'Then add endpoints and an API key' also separates it from endpoint/key-related sibling 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 positions create_app as the first step in a workflow: create the app, 'Then add endpoints and an API key.' This implies the subsequent use of sibling tools such as create_app_endpoint and create_app_api_key, though it does not name them explicitly. It gives useful context but does not include exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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