update_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavior: the attrs object is 'merged onto the subscription', and gives typical structures (`{ settings: {...} }`, `{ status }`). However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether the merge is shallow/deep or whether existing settings are replaced, so it is not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every phrase is informative. No filler or repetition of schema details. Efficient and well-structured.

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 config-update tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behaviors. It lacks return-value information, but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete. The explicit alternative for product-review apps adds important context.

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 value by clarifying the merge semantics and showing typical shapes for attrs, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Fields to update' description. This strengthens parameter understanding.

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 the specific verb+resource: 'Update an installed app's configuration.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming update_app_review as the preferred alternative for product-review apps. This gives a precise, actionable purpose.

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?

It provides explicit usage context: pass the subscription id and attrs object. It also names an alternative (update_app_review) and the specific condition for using it, effectively telling the agent when to choose a different tool.

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