Delete app command

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by revealing the two-phase behavior: the first call changes nothing and only returns a preview and confirm_token, while the second call with the token actually removes the command. This is a critical behavioral nuance that prevents accidental destructive actions.

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 compact and perfectly front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the safe calling flow. No redundant words or filler; every clause adds necessary information.

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 destructive nature and 5 parameters, the description covers all essential operational context: the confirmation flow, the token, and the preview. It even tells the user what the first call returns, effectively covering the output schema that is absent. This is sufficient for safe and correct usage.

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 schema has 60% coverage and leaves dry_run and confirm_token undocumented, but the description explains the confirm_token's role in the second call and implies a dry-run mode in the first ('changes nothing'). This compensates for the missing schema descriptions, though it does not explicitly name dry_run.

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 clearly states the tool's function: unregistering a slash command so it no longer appears for users. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like delete_integration or delete_webhook, and the effect is unambiguous.

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 clear context on how to invoke the tool safely: the first call is a preview, and the second call with the token performs the deletion. It does not explicitly compare alternatives (e.g., update_app_command to disable), but the step-by-step invocation guidance is strong for a destructive tool.

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