Manage LIFF apps

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

The description accurately states that the delete mode removes a LIFF app, which is destructive, but the annotations claim destructiveHint=false. This is a clear contradiction, leading to a score of 1 per scoring rules. The description otherwise provides useful behavioral context like the auth note and confirm requirement.

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 well-structured with a brief overview, followed by a bulleted mode list, args section, auth note, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers all major aspects: modes, parameter requirements, auth info, and examples. However, because there is no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning what each operation returns (e.g., list returns an array, create returns the new app's liff_id). The config subfields are partially covered by the examples but could be explicitly detailed.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains when each parameter is required (e.g., config full for create, partial for update), the role of confirm, and gives examples that clarify the config structure. Schema coverage is only 40%, and the description compensates effectively.

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 'LIFF lifecycle CRUD' and lists four operations with specific verbs (create, list, update, delete), clearly indicating the tool manages LIFF apps. It distinguishes from sibling tools like line_emit_liff_code by focusing on CRUD operations.

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 explicit guidance for each mode, including when liff_id is required and the need for confirm=true on delete. Examples illustrate natural language mapping. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool in favor of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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