Delete an application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does explicitly flag 'Permanently deletes' and the destructive-action gate, which is crucial behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't describe consequences beyond deletion (e.g., whether related pages/queries are also removed, irreversibility detail beyond 'permanently', or auth specifics). The destructive warning is the key trait and is present.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Every word adds value—states the action, its permanence, and the operational requirement. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 action with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is lean but sufficient. It discloses the critical safety gate and permanence. It could arguably mention what is lost (child pages/queries), but the destructive flag and clear verb deliver the essentials for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100% (the single applicationId param is described as 'Application id to delete'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies. For a single self-evident parameter, this is adequate.

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?

Clearly states it permanently deletes an application—a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_query/delete_js_object, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 states the destructive-nature gating condition: 'Disabled unless APPSMITH_MCP_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true is set in the server env.' This tells the agent when the tool will fail, which is critical usage guidance. It also implies this is a dangerous action, setting the barrier for when-not-to-use.

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