Manage LIFF apps

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: mode-specific parameter requirements, the confirm guard for delete, and the auth token limitation. It does not describe return values or error semantics, but at least it flags the confirm requirement and token ownership issue.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It lists modes, highlights key requirements, includes an auth note, and ends with a concrete example. Each 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 mode mechanics and parameter requirements, but lacks any mention of return values or response format, which is significant given there is no output schema. It also does not explain the optional 'oa' parameter or behavior when omitted, leaving some gaps for a complex CRUD tool.

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 40% schema coverage, the description compensates by mapping each mode to its required parameters (e.g., create requires config.view, update requires liff_id + partial config, delete requires liff_id + confirm=true). The concrete example further clarifies how config maps to a real request.

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 'LIFF app lifecycle CRUD' and enumerates all four modes (create, list, update, delete) with specific parameter requirements. This clearly distinguishes it from other LINE management tools that handle rich menus, audiences, or messages.

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 gives clear context for each mode, specifying required parameters (e.g., 'create needs config.view {type,url}', 'delete (liff_id + confirm=true)') and includes an auth caveat for separate-channel setups. It does not explicitly reference alternative tools, but the mode guidance is sufficiently actionable.

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