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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it reveals the app leaves the shelf, the address serves a tombstone, the reason is published verbatim with a date in a permanent public ledger, and the removal record is permanent. This is exemplary transparency about irreversible, public consequences.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: main action, effect on the app, ledger policy, and permanence. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and stays free of 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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the action, its public and permanent consequences, and the necessary context. It doesn't explain return values or errors, which isn't essential here.

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 already covers both parameters (slug and reason) at 100%, and the description adds significant meaning to the 'reason' parameter by noting it is required and published verbatim in the permanent ledger. It adds nothing new for 'slug,' but the overall enrichment justifies a score above 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Take down an app published with your key.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like publish_app and search_apps, and it clarifies whose apps can be removed.

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 implies when to use the tool (for an app you published) and hints at a prerequisite ('with your key'), but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough, though exclusions are absent.

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