timeweb_update_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., envs replacing all existing variables), required permissions, reversibility, or impact on the application's deployment status. The lack of detail is a significant gap for a state-changing 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 sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, achieving maximum conciseness. All words contribute meaning.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, behavior around unspecified settings, or how this update task relates to other app lifecycle tools. The schema covers parameter syntax but not the broader context needed for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly, including descriptions for envs, name, branch, preset_id, etc. The description provides no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Update') and resource ('PaaS application settings'), meeting the minimum bar for clarity. However, 'settings' is vague and does not enumerate what specific settings are updatable, and there is no differentiation from other update tools beyond the resource name. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like timeweb_app_action, timeweb_deploy_app, or other update tools. There is no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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