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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, but the description goes well beyond them: exact timing of address failure (within a minute), slug redistribution to any workspace, permanent file loss, the fact that board and assets are unaffected, and a specific error code path with an escalation instruction.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler: the action, the irreversible consequence, the blast radius, and the permission/error prerequisites. Each sentence carries distinct information an agent needs before invoking.

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, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers reversibility, side effects, scope boundaries, required permissions, and the unhandlable error case. Nothing material to 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 both parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the slug pattern and the single-vs-multi-workspace resolution rule for organization. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, 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+resource ('Take a hosted app offline and delete it') with a clear scope statement about what happens to the app's address and slug. An agent can distinguish this from delete_asset and delete_board immediately, and the description reinforces that the board and its assets are untouched.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as non-reversible and names deploy_app as the alternative path to bring the app back, plus states the prerequisites (write scope, board-edit permission, hosted apps enabled). The hosted_apps_disabled 403 case and the instruction to tell the user to contact support give the agent a concrete fallback behavior.

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