configure_app

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral traits: 'Reversible - executes immediately.' However, it does not say whether a partial payload (only app_id required) will leave other fields untouched or reset them, nor whether privileges are required — both relevant for a mutating tool with no annotation safety net.

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?

Two/three compact sentences with zero filler: the core function leads, then behavior, then boundary disambiguation. Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant facts are 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?

In 100% schema coverage, scope and exclusions are clear, and a 4-param flat tool with no output schema achieves most of what an agent needs. Gaps are minor: the return/confirmation shape is unstated, and partial-update semantics (whether unspecified fields stay intact) are left to inference.

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% — every parameter already carries a description, including a detailed prep_mode enum explanation. The description adds only the conceptual grouping ('content fields' vs 'who prepares it'), which is mild value beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Configures an app's content fields (name, base_url) and who prepares it (prep_mode)'), which maps directly to the schema fields. It also pre-empts sibling ambiguity by carving out 'icon is set_icon and webview injection is a dashboard concern,' so an agent can distinguish it from set_icon and other tools without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly scopes the tool as 'Content-only, matching the CLI `apps update`,' and name-s the exclusion: icons belong to set_icon and webview injection belongs to a dashboard concern. This gives concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use directions relative to populated sibling tools.

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