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

The annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description goes further by detailing the irreversible nature, the lack of undo/export, the discarded ciphertext, and the widest-blast-radius warning. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what the structured annotations provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the deletion effect, irreversibility, alternatives, human confirmation, and return shape are all covered in a compact description. The most critical scoping and safety information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies all essential context: what is deleted, the cascade to secrets, irreversibility, blast radius, safer alternatives, and what the response contains. There are no missing behavioral or safety details an agent needs before calling.

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%, with both app and org parameters fully documented in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource — deleting an application — and precisely scopes the blast radius to all environments and their secrets. It explicitly distinguishes itself from delete_env and rename_app, so an agent can tell which tool is which without inspecting schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool only for full application deletion, prefer delete_env for a single environment, and rename_app if the name is the only problem. It also instructs the agent to confirm intent with a human before calling, which is a clear and important usage condition.

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