add_application

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

The description explains non-destructive behavior (adding an app) and the expected post-add state ('Set up build' shown). Annotations are minimal, and the description adds useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose. It is slightly verbose but every sentence provides useful information. Could be more concise, but structure is good.

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?

Given 2 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers parameter semantics and post-add expectations. It is 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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to 'repository_url' by detailing HTTPS vs SSH behaviors. It does not expand on 'team_id' but the added value for the key parameter warrants a 4.

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 explicitly states 'Add a new application to Codemagic by connecting a Git repository,' clearly specifying the action (add) and resource (application). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_applications' or 'trigger_build'.

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 provides guidance on when to use HTTPS vs SSH URLs and mentions prerequisites (connected account for private HTTPS repos). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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