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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and confirm_delete is in the schema, but the description adds real context the annotations cannot: the cascade deletion scope, the API key requirement, the zero credit cost, and that the call is rejected without confirm_delete=true. Only missing the return format, which prevents a 5. It does not contradict the idempotentHint=true annotation, since a repeat delete would leave the same end state.

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 sentences, no redundancy: purpose and cascade first, then usage boundary, then prerequisite and cost/auth, then return shape. Each sentence carries distinct, actionable information.

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?

Covers authentication, cost, cascade scope, confirmation safety, and return keys, which is thorough for a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema. The description could not have done much more without becoming verbose.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates confirm_delete behavior and app_id provenance from list_apps but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 (permanently delete) and resource (registered application) plus the exact cascade of what is removed: subscriber device tokens, scheduled campaigns, delivery history. The scope alone distinguishes it from update_app_branding and configure_inapp_banner, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition (user asks to remove a duplicate or decommissioned app) and an explicit when-not-to-use condition (pausing notifications or changing app settings), naming the two alternative tools. It also states a prerequisite: call list_apps first to verify app_id and subscriber count.

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