Delete OAuth app

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known, but the description goes well beyond that: it explains the client secret dies immediately, integrations lose their device-enrollment path, and already-enrolled devices survive. This is exactly the side-effect disclosure an agent needs for a destructive operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the word 'irreversible' before the consequences, and the routing sentence lands last. Three sentences all earn their place, though the alpha parenthetical is slightly incidental.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, the exact blast radius (secret invalidated, no new device authorization), what is NOT destroyed (enrolled devices), and how to source the id. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 appId is already documented, and the description's only added semantics is pointing at tailscale_list_oauth_apps for the value. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 and resource (delete an OAuth App), names the object precisely, and flags its alpha status. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like tailscale_delete_key or tailscale_delete_device without opening any schema.

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 points to tailscale_list_oauth_apps as the way to obtain the id, which is useful routing. However, it offers no guidance on when deletion is appropriate versus alternatives such as rotating the client secret or leaving the app in place, so usage context is only implied.

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