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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by enumerating what is actually destroyed (platform resource, pipeline wiring, all deployments across all clusters) and warning that deletion is permanent. That is concrete blast-radius and irreversibility context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three short sentences, each with a distinct job: define scope, route to the alternative, warn on permanence. Front-loaded with the action and no filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, how far the deletion reaches, permanence, and when to use a sibling instead. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (application_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, prefix, or lookup guidance for the id, 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 (delete) and resource (Application) and immediately defines the exact blast radius: the platform resource, its pipeline wiring, and every deployment on every cluster. It also names the sibling remove_application_deployment as the narrower alternative, so the agent can distinguish the two without opening 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 states the alternative and the condition that selects it: 'To take it off one cluster only, use remove_application_deployment instead.' This is exactly the when/when-not routing an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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