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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the cascade (resume and comments are also deleted) and irreversibility, which an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the destructive scope is front-loaded and the irreversibility warning follows immediately.

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 rich annotations, the description covers what matters: cascade effects and irreversibility. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether any audit trail or recovery path exists.

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 the schema already documents that applicationId is a UUID obtainable from list_applications. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, 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 (deletes) and resource (application), and adds cascade scope: the resume and comments go with it. The name plus description clearly separates it from delete_comment, delete_job, and delete_stage.

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 destructive intent implies when to call it, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., moving an application via move_application instead of removing it). Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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