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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what will be destroyed: the application, classes, documents, and clearance reports. It also discloses a critical behavioral constraint—rejection after firm handoff—which an agent needs to anticipate failure modes.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the core action and affected resources, the second adds the crucial when-not-to-use condition. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information 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 destructive single-parameter delete operation, the description provides the essential context: what is deleted, the scope of deletion, and a key precondition/refusal scenario. With the output schema present and the parameter fully documented, nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, and the single required parameter applicationId is described as a 'UUID value wrapper.' The description adds the semantic context that this ID refers to an abandoned application, but the schema already sufficiently documents the parameter format and type.

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 clearly states the action ('erases an application'), the specific resource (an application the applicant has abandoned), and the cascading scope (classes, documents, and clearance reports). This distinguishes it from sibling trademark tools like trademark_get_application or trademark_submit_to_firm.

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 explicitly states when deletion is appropriate (applicant abandoned the application) and provides a firm exclusion condition: once the package has gone to the firm, deletion is refused and withdrawal becomes a conversation. It does not name a direct alternative tool, but the condition is clear enough for an agent to avoid misuse.

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