add_app

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false; the description adds the critical behavioral fact that nothing is written, a confirmToken is returned, and a separate confirm_action call is required after user approval. That is exactly the kind of write-flow disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the preview-only warning is front-loaded, the return payload is stated, and the hard constraint on confirm_action is last so it sticks.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what comes back (the would-change diff plus confirmToken) and how to complete the flow. With 100% param coverage, nothing needed to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by clarifying that the tool accepts either an App Store or a Google Play app, which explains the OR relationship between the optional iosId and androidPkg parameters.

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+resource ('start tracking an App Store or Google Play app in this workspace') and immediately tags it as a preview operation. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like add_keywords/add_rivals which track other entities.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-step flow: this tool previews, then the agent must call confirm_action only after the user's explicit approval. That gives both a when-to-use condition and an explicit when-not-to-call rule for the sibling.

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