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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the operation is DESTRUCTIVE, irreversible, and lists exactly what will be removed (microVM, image, route, data), and clarifies that this is a staging action, not immediate deletion.

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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and destructive warning, then provides the required parameter, return value, and next-step instruction efficiently.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (actionId), the required confirmation step, the destructive scope, and authentication need. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and know what to do next.

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?

The description only restates 'Required: appId (string)', which is already in the schema, adding no semantic value about what appId identifies. It does not mention sessionKey at all, even though schema coverage is only 50% and the description should compensate for the undocumented appId parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Stage deletion of an Osir app.' It further distinguishes itself by explaining that deletion is destructive and irreversible, removing microVM, image, route, and data, which separates it from sibling osirApp tools like osirAppDeploy or osirAppStatus.

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 explains the two-step usage flow: stage the deletion, present the summary to the user, then call executeConfirmedAction with the returned actionId upon approval. It also notes authentication requirements, giving clear context for when and how to use this tool.

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