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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds genuine value beyond them: the irreversible consequence ('can't be brought back') and the user-visible effect ('stops opening on the user's phone'). It stops short of describing any confirmation or cascade side effects outside the app itself.

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 compact sentences; the consequence is stated first and the usage constraint second. Nothing is padded or repeated from the annotations.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: irreversibility, user impact, and a usage gate.

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% and the single 'app' parameter is fully documented (slug as list_apps shows it, or id). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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 plus the blast radius ('every version of it'), which is exactly what separates it from update_app or rollback_app. An agent knows this removes the entire artifact, not one version.

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?

Gives a clear gating condition ('Only do this when the user has clearly asked for that app to be deleted'), which is meaningful for a destructive tool. It does not name sibling alternatives such as rollback_app for recovery, so it falls 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.