create_app

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

Annotations already establish that this is a mutating, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate those facts. It adds useful behavioral scope by clarifying that the app is only the named surface and that endpoints and API keys are added afterward. However, it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or return behavior.

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 two concise sentences that define the resource, state its purpose, and outline the next workflow step. There is no redundant phrasing, and the key 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?

For a simple, schema-free create operation, the description covers what an app is, why it is created, and the natural next steps. The sibling list supplies the follow-up tools, so an agent can navigate the workflow. It does not mention what the tool returns or how organizationId affects the request, but the core invocation path is clear.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It adds meaning by noting the app is 'named' and that it is 'over the boards of a project,' which loosely maps to name and projectId. However, organizationId is not addressed at all, and the mapping to specific schema properties remains implicit.

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 opens with the specific operation 'Create an app' and precisely defines the resource as 'a named API surface over the boards of a project, for an external frontend.' This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_app_endpoint and create_app_api_key, because the scope is the app itself, not the subsequent endpoint or key creation.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: when an external frontend needs a named API surface over a project's boards. It also implies the correct sequence by saying 'Then add endpoints and an API key,' steering the agent toward the follow-up tools. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternative conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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