create_mobile_app_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the '[Write]' tag merely repeats structured data. The description does add value by clarifying the record is metadata-only and provisions nothing, but it omits how duplicate names are handled (idempotentHint=false), whether extra permissions are required, and what happens on name collisions.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope limitation is stated immediately after the action. The trailing '[Write]' marker is redundant given readOnlyHint=false and is the only wasted token.

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 small one-parameter create tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a successful call returns (sys_id, record body) and says nothing about duplicate handling or prerequisites, which an agent needs to chain the created record into follow-up calls like update_mobile_app_config.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — and 'name-only' does confirm that name is the sole settable field, matching additionalProperties=false. It adds little else: nothing about name format, uniqueness constraints, or length expectations beyond the schema's minLength=1.

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 (create a name-only sys_sg_mobile_application metadata record) and explicitly bounds scope with what it does NOT do (no installable app, branding, navigation, screens). That boundary cleanly separates it from create_mobile_applet and create_mobile_layout in a crowded mobile sibling set.

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 negative scoping ('does not provision an installable mobile app, branding, navigation or screens') tells an agent when this tool is the wrong choice, which is strong guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling (e.g., create_mobile_applet/create_mobile_layout) that an agent should pick instead when those artifacts are needed.

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