create_scoped_app

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds context by specifying the write-enable requirement and scope naming constraints, which helps the agent understand preconditions and behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose and prerequisite, the second adds a critical constraint. Well-structured and efficient.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters (2 required), the description covers the essential: what it creates, where, precondition (WRITE_ENABLED), and naming rule. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to detail returns; it's complete enough for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented. The description reinforces the scope pattern but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema's existing examples and constraints.

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 states the verb 'Create', the resource 'scoped application', and the location 'App Studio'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_incident' by specifying the app domain and includes a prerequisite.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true) and a constraint on scope uniqueness and pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like 'create_ux_app_route' or when not to use it.

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