application_update

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden for behavior. It only states that password is needed when changing hostUri; it does not mention whether the update is partial or full, whether changes are reversible, what side effects occur, or what response is returned.

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 opening sentence plus one high-value caveat; there is no repetition or filler. The most important fact about the operation is front-loaded.

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?

With a complete input schema, the agent has enough parameter-level information to invoke the tool. Still, for a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not convey the overall update semantics, authorization scope, or result, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 seven parameters including the hostUri/password dependency. The description repeats that dependency but adds essentially nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update an application'), so an agent knows this is a mutation targeting an existing application. However, it gives no details that distinguish application_update from the many sibling update tools other than the resource name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 verb/resource pairing implies this tool is for modifying an existing application, and the hostUri/password note is a useful rule for one particular update. But it never says when to choose this over application_create, application_delete, or other application operations, and it does not state exclusions.

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