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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by enumerating exactly what is destroyed (URL, share links, invitations, stored data), stating no undo, explaining the publish-replaces semantics, failed-publish behavior, and the 'second call not found' signature that confirms success rather than failure. This is unusually rich disclosure for a destructive operation.

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?

Front-loads the destructive, irreversible fact in the first two sentences, then layers edge cases. Every sentence carries behavioral information, though the closing sentence about the second-call response is convoluted enough to require re-reading.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers irreversibility, side effects, idempotency semantics, and failure/refusal modes. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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 app_id is already documented as 'the app to delete, exactly as publish or list_apps gave it'. The description adds no further parameter syntax or format guidance, 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 and resource ('Deletes an app permanently') and immediately adds the scope of destruction, making it unmistakable against siblings like publish or list_apps. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear when-not condition ('An app turned off after a report cannot be deleted, and a retry gets the same refusal') and warns there is no undo, which is strong context for choosing to call it. It does not name a sibling alternative for recovering or archiving an app, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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