marketplace_uninstall_application

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

The description does not contradict annotations, but it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations already flag destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the agent knows it is destructive. The description merely repeats the verb 'Uninstall' without disclosing side effects (e.g., removal of associated data, scope of uninstallation) or any additional behavioral details. It adds nothing beyond the annotation profile.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded and free of extra words. It earns its place by stating the core action. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but for a dimension focused on conciseness and structure, it scores well for not wasting words.

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?

The tool has a destructive nature, conditional parameter requirements (reason required for developers, companyId required for agency tokens, locationId defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID), and no output schema. The description is far too minimal to convey these nuances. An agent calling this tool without consulting the schema could easily misuse it, e.g., omitting reason when uninstalling as a developer or failing to specify scope. The description should at least hint at these conditions.

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 all four parameters (appId, reason, companyId, locationId) are documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter semantics—it does not mention any parameter details. Since the schema carries the full burden, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither helps nor hinders.

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 'Uninstall an application' clearly states the action (uninstall) and the resource (application), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling marketplace tools like marketplace_get_charges or marketplace_delete_charge, though those are obviously different operations. It lacks any contextual specificity about scope (agency vs location), so it is clear at a basic level but not fully distinct from similar uninstall-like operations in the same domain.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions, no prerequisites, and no mention of the nuances covered in the parameter descriptions (e.g., reason required for developers, companyId for agency tokens). An agent must infer usage solely from the schema, which is insufficient for a destructive operation with conditional requirements.

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