tealfabric_update_webapp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Update' and gives examples. It does not state whether updates are partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, or whether any side effects occur.

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 a single efficient sentence with the key action and resource front-loaded. It contains no filler, though the 'e.g.' phrasing makes the set of updatable fields slightly vague.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify which fields are commonly updated, how process_id nullability works, or what response the agent should expect.

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 only 11%, with only webapp_id documented. The description names page_content and name, but leaves the semantics of custom_js, custom_css, process_id, description, page_header, and page_footer entirely unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the action as 'Update' and the resource as 'an existing Tealfabric webapp,' with examples 'page_content, name.' This distinguishes it from creation and retrieval tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus create_webapp or publish_webapp. The word 'existing' implies the resource must already exist, but there is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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