cf_delete_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'Delete an application' discloses almost nothing: not that deletion is irreversible, not what the default 'force: true' bypasses in terms of confirmation, and not what happens to bound services or routes. It only conveys the obvious destructive intent.

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?

Three words, front-loaded, with zero waste — but the brevity here is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness for a destructive, no-annotation tool. Every word earns its place only because there is almost nothing to say.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an irreversible mutation, the definition should at minimum cover confirmation behavior, reversibility, and side effects on bound services/routes. None of that is present, leaving the agent insufficiently briefed before a destructive call.

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 both appName and the force flag (including its default-true confirmation bypass) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or effect information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('application'), so an agent can immediately tell it is a destructive operation on an app rather than a service or route. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling cf_delete_service, but the resource noun makes the target 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must the app be stopped or targeted first?), and no pointer to alternatives such as cf_stop or cf_delete_service. The agent must infer everything about context from the name alone.

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