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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description still adds real value by disclosing that the deletion is permanent and cascades to the app's associated data, which is the key behavioral consequence an agent needs. It omits any mention of required permissions or irreversibility recovery.

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, with the gating condition first, then the action, then the version note. The final fragment 'MCP version 2.12.' is terse but directly supports the required mcp_version parameter, so it earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with fully covered schema and complete destructive/idempotency annotations, the description covers when to call it, what is removed (app plus associated data), and the permanent nature of the operation. With no output schema expected, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the mcp_version pattern and its instruction to use "2.12". The description's 'Pass app_id' and 'MCP version 2.12' merely restate what the schema already says, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond it.

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: delete an app, and clarifies that associated data goes with it, which separates it from the sibling delete_app_secrets / delete_custom_domain tools in effect if not by name. It never explicitly names those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary from the 'associated data' phrasing.

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?

'Call this tool only when the user requests permanent app deletion' is a genuine gating condition that is front-loaded, giving clear when-to-use context. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives (delete_app_secrets, apply_app_version) or stating when-not-to-use it, so no exclusions are covered.

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