update_app_config

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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the scope requirement (apps:write) and enumerates the configurable fields, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the app restarts or changes take effect immediately) or any restrictions on updating while the app is running.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and the key configurable fields, with the scope requirement parenthetically. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal schema descriptions, the description provides a useful list of updatable fields but omits important operational context: what happens after an update, whether partial updates are allowed, and any constraints on the values. An agent would need to inspect the schema for types and rely on common sense about update semantics.

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?

With only 13% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping several parameters to human-readable config items: 'memory' for memory, 'main file' for main, 'runtime version' for version, 'start command' for start, and 'name' for name. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it omits the 'description' and 'workspace_id' parameters, and doesn't clarify the required 'id' beyond the schema.

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 'Changes' and the resource 'application's configuration', and lists specific fields (name, memory, main file, runtime version, start command) that distinguish it from other update tools like update_workspace. It is unambiguous about what resource it targets, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 implies its use for modifying app configuration but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., create_app for initial setup, deploy_app for code changes, start_app for runtime state). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the decision largely to inference.

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