timeweb_app_action

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

With no annotations to clarify behavior, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the actions (start, stop, restart), which are mutating, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or response behavior, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose and key actions with no wasteful or redundant text. It is optimally concise.

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 tool is a mutating action with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not mention return formats, side effects, or prerequisites. The 'format' parameter suggests outputs, but the description omits any such context, leaving the overall picture incomplete.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description only restates the 'action' enum values, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate but not exceptional.

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 tool's action ('Perform an action') and resource ('PaaS application'), with a specific set of actions in parentheses. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'timeweb_server_action', so it does not fully meet the top score.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for basic app lifecycle actions, but it does not mention exclusions or suggest alternatives such as deploys or logs.

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