remove_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that removal takes effect only after the next build_backend, which is important behavioral context, and that omitting class_name lists deployed apps, indicating a non-destructive mode. This adds meaningful detail beyond the obvious 'remove' action, though it could go further (e.g., error states or permanence).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the critical timing detail and the alternate usage. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main function, the deferred effect, and the list mode. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but given the low complexity and schema richness, this is not a critical gap. The tool's dual nature is fully explained, making it largely complete for an agent to invoke 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 already fully describes the class_name parameter, including the 'omit to list' behavior, achieving 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'Without class_name lists the deployed dev apps' largely duplicates the schema text, adding no substantial new meaning. Thus a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove a previously deployed dev app'), specifies the resource location ('from src/zz_dev/'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like deploy_app and build_backend by noting the deferred effect. The alternate listing behavior ('Without class_name lists the deployed dev apps') adds further specificity.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to remove a previously deployed dev app) and notes the dependency on build_backend for the effect to take place. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the dual listing behavior implies the useful single-argument use case.

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