Delete app and its data

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add detail. It does: deletion is permanent, it affects only the app's exclusive data, and shared or 'unprovable' collections are deliberately preserved. The plan-then-apply flow is genuinely useful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover auth/permission requirements or reversibility beyond 'permanently'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope restriction and destructive scope before the plan/apply mechanics. Every clause carries information; no 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, no-output-schema tool with 4 params, the description covers the key risks: permanence, the two-call pattern, and what data is spared. It omits permission/auth prerequisites and any hint about what the returned plan contains, which slightly weakens completeness.

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 50%: command_id and request_state carry their own descriptions, while name and actor are bare. The description clarifies the role of request_state within the plan workflow, but adds nothing about command_id, name, or actor semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial schema coverage.

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 ('deletes') plus resource ('an app AND the data only it used') and scoping ('Settings app only'), which separates it from the sibling delete_app that presumably removes the app alone. 'Permanently' also signals irreversible scope, so an agent can choose correctly 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?

The description establishes context ('Settings app only') and explains the two-phase workflow: first call returns a plan, the re-sent call with request_state executes it. It never explicitly names delete_app as the alternative or states when purge is preferable, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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