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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description adds concrete consequences: removal from listings, server stopped, address no longer resolves, and deletion of saved packages, the Git token, and repository-fetched files. It also states irreversibility and project-wide blast radius, which an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then enumerates consequences in a scannable clause chain. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 no output schema, the definition covers action, scope, side effects, irreversibility, and parameter provenance. 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 (appId, projectId) are documented with provenance in the schema itself. The description adds no format, constraint, or validation 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 (Delete) and resource (Streamlit app) plus an explicit scope qualifier: 'for everyone in the project'. That scope statement distinguishes it from narrower per-user or file-level operations among the many fastero_delete_* siblings.

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?

Implicitly routes the agent by naming fastero_list_streamlit_apps as the source of the appId and by warning 'It cannot be restored here', which signals this is not a reversible or soft operation. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. replace_streamlit_files) when the user only wants to change content.

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