App (destructive)

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real context beyond that: the first call only returns a plan plus confirm_token, the repeat applies it, and disable_background_tasks is called out as irreversible while quit_resolve terminates the application.

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-loads the purpose sentence, then a clean bulleted action list with per-action params in a consistent signature style, then the confirm-token rule, then the batch_run pointer. Dense and readable, though the opening 'Remove app objects.' is a terse fragment and the contract sentence sits at the end rather than up front.

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, nested-object tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies what structured fields cannot: the action taxonomy, the confirmation protocol, and the irreversibility flag on one action. Minor gap is that nothing explains when snapshot=true should be preferred over the server policy.

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 baseline is 3. The description does add per-action parameter requirements (delete_preset needs kind* and name*), which the generic 'additionalProperties' op schema does not spell out, but dry_run and snapshot are left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Remove app objects') and immediately enumerates the three concrete actions, which pins down the scope far better than the title alone. It is clearly distinguishable from app_read/app_write and from the other domain delete tools by virtue of the application-level action list.

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?

Explicitly routes multi-step work to batch_run ('Calls known in advance ... ONE batch_run') and explains the two-phase plan/confirm flow needed to actually apply a deletion. It does not say when to prefer app_write or describe_action instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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