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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds crucial detail: 'no undo and no backup', confirmation required before passing confirm true, and the post-condition that the app becomes scratch space where writes are lost on restart. This substantially enriches the agent's understanding of side effects.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, followed by consequence, confirmation requirement, invocation triggers, and post-state. Every sentence adds useful information without filler.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, when to call it, and the final state of the app. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke the tool 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?

The schema covers both parameters well, including the requirement that confirm must be true and only after user confirmation. The description adds a small operational nuance about asking the user to confirm 'in their own words', but the core parameter meaning is already provided by the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Remove an app's storage and erase every file on it.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_app_storage by emphasizing permanent destruction and the resulting scratch-space state.

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 tells the agent when to call it: 'when the user asks for the storage to go, or when they want something storage rules out.' It also adds a clear confirmation precondition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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