destroy_nodejs_app

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation, yet it says nothing about irreversibility, whether application files or environment variables are also removed versus only the registration being cleared, or required permissions. 'Unregister and remove' slightly implies scope, but leaves the key destructive consequences unspecified.

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?

One short sentence with the action verb front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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 terminal, irreversible-looking teardown tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits whether files/data survive, what happens if the app is running, and what a successful removal returns or confirms. An agent cannot call this safely on the strength of the definition alone.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Registered application name to remove'), so the schema already fully explains it. The description adds no format hints such as whether app_name must match exactly what list_nodejs_apps returns; 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 pair ('Unregister and remove') and a specific resource ('Node.js application configuration'), which clearly separates it from setup_nodejs_app, restart_nodejs_app, and list_nodejs_apps. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling such as unregister_passenger_app, but the resource noun 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of prerequisites (e.g. stopping the app first), no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives for merely disabling rather than deleting. The agent must infer that this is the teardown step after setup_nodejs_app.

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