create_mobile_applet

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation. The description adds useful scope information beyond annotations by stating it creates only base metadata and explicitly excludes subtype/data item/navigation/app association setup. It still omits duplicate-name behavior, permissions, and side effects beyond what the annotations cover.

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 brief and front-loads the main action and scope. The trailing '**[Write]**' is redundant with the write annotation but not harmful; the exclusion sentence earns its place by clarifying limited scope.

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 simple two-parameter create tool with annotations and no output schema, the description adequately communicates the narrow creation scope and exclusions. However, it leaves parameter semantics and practical usage guidance under-specified, creating notable gaps for an agent deciding how to call it 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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters, and the description provides no meaning for 'name' or 'description'. It does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the required 'name' parameter and optional 'description' semantically undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create base sys_sg_screen metadata only.' It also clarifies scope by listing what the tool does not configure (subtype, data item, navigation, app association), which helps distinguish it from broader mobile configuration tools. However, it relies on the internal table name 'sys_sg_screen' rather than explicitly naming 'mobile applet' or a sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: create base metadata when you do not need subtype, data item, navigation, or app association configuration. The description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings such as create_mobile_app_config or create_mobile_layout, nor does it state prerequisites or ordering.

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