model_undeploy

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it destroys the whole application (all deployments), it is irreversible without the original import path, and dry_run provides a preview. This goes meaningfully beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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?

Front-loaded with risk tag and the core verb, followed by the irreversibility caveat and a compact per-argument list. Every sentence earns its place with 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 this is nearly complete: risk, scope, reversibility, and all params are covered. It stops just short of stating whether auth/permissions are required or what dry_run returns, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and documents all three params: application (sourced from serve_deployment_list), dry_run, and target (omit for default). This compensates well, though target's exact format is only lightly described.

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+resource ('Tear down a whole Serve application') and scopes it precisely by noting it removes all deployments, which distinguishes it from narrower siblings like scale_to_zero or replica_restart. The [WRITE][risk=high] tag immediately frames the operation.

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 a clear operational tip ('pass dry_run=True to preview') and signals irreversibility, so an agent knows the safe path. However, it never names an alternative sibling or an explicit when-not condition, leaving sibling routing (e.g. vs scale_to_zero) to inference.

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