deny_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares the action is to remove (mutation), but does not disclose consequences like reversibility, persistence, whether permissions are required, impact on actively-captured sessions, or any side effects. For a destructive operation, this is a notable gap.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The most important functional details (action, resource, scope, key) are all included, and it deliberately omits anything superfluous.

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?

Given the tool's simple nature (one parameter, no nested objects) and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential invocation information. It lacks a note about whether the operation is reversible or how to confirm the result, but for a tool of this simplicity, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema has a single 'bundle_id' parameter with no schema-native description (0% coverage). The tool description explicitly explains it as 'bundle identifier,' which gives meaning to the parameter beyond the parameter name, providing the necessary context for the agent to supply it.

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 states a specific action ('Remove'), a target resource ('an app from the capture allowlist'), and the key ('by bundle identifier'), making it unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tool allow_app, which would add an app instead.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus staying on the fate delta of the sibling allow_app, nor does it mention conditions or alternatives. The context of being in an allowlist implies it should be used when revoking access, but this is only implicit and not spelled out in the description.

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