marketplace_uninstall

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail not in annotations or schema text — that an exact confirmation phrase is required — but does not explain what that phrase is, that only 'apply' is destructive, or what side effects the uninstall has.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its dual mode, followed immediately by the critical precondition. No filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with five parameters at 20% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the confirmation phrase format, the plan/apply distinction's consequences, and any ownership/location constraints, leaving an agent under-equipped to call it safely.

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 only 20% (just partner_id), leaving mode, location_id, application_id, and confirmation undocumented in the schema. The description indirectly implies mode semantics ('plan or uninstall') and flags the confirmation requirement, but never states the required phrase format or the roles of the id parameters, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('uninstall an application from a location') and distinguishes the two operating modes (plan vs. actual uninstall). It's clearly differentiated from siblings like marketplace_activate_installation or marketplace_install_sidebar_frame, though it never explicitly names an alternative.

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 phrase 'Plan or uninstall' implies a two-step flow (dry-run then apply), which hints at when each mode is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance on sequencing, prerequisites, or when to prefer this tool over related lifecycle tools such as activate_installation.

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