Undeploy app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the key effect (no longer restarts with the server), which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible (i.e., re-deploying), whether it affects running processes or data, or any permission requirements. It covers the core effect but lacks broader context.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the action and then clarifies the consequence. Every word adds value, and there is no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and subject, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description is incomplete for successful invocation. It does not explain the expected format or meaning of the 'app' parameter, nor does it mention any conditions (e.g., app must be deployed already). While the action is clear, the lack of parameter guidance and any prerequisites means an agent may call it with incorrect input.

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 required parameter 'app' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description fails to clarify what 'app' refers to (e.g., app name, ID, path). There is no explanation of accepted values or how to reference the local deploy. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, leaving the agent without sufficient information to populate the argument correctly.

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 action (take down) and the resource (a local deploy), and adds a clarifying behavioral outcome (it will no longer restart with the server). This distinguishes it from delete_app (which likely removes the app entirely) and deploy (the reverse operation), making the purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy or delete_app. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the app must be currently deployed) or scenarios where it is appropriate. Users must infer from the name and the effect that it is used to stop a local deployment, but no explicit routing is given.

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