Manage application lifecycle

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

Annotations only supply the coarse destructive/idempotent/openWorld flags; the description adds substantial specifics beyond them: stop interrupts service, uninstall permanently deletes containers, configuration, credentials and data while backups are retained, the backend freezes the eligible release, and the queued response must be verified via get_application_installation/get_application_events. It also notes the applications:manage requirement and that it is not a paid API-key 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 core action, then layered with confirmation, preconditions, destructive semantics, and verification in a logical order. It is dense and paragraph-form rather than bulleted, but nearly every sentence carries distinct information, so little is wasted.

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, multi-action mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, required confirmations, side effects, verification path, permissions, and the boundary to adjacent restore operations. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for expected_blueprint_version/expected_upstream_version and acknowledge_data_loss by explaining the access-control intent (backend selects the immutable release; callers cannot pick an arbitrary target) and the confirmation gate. That is genuine semantic value on top of the field docs.

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 ("Queue one supported lifecycle action for an owned managed application") and enumerates the action set. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like install_application, cancel_application_action, and restore_application_data, which it names as separate operations.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use instructions: confirm the action with the user first, read get_application_installation before update/rollback, and use list_application_restore_points/restore_application_data for selective restore. It also states the precondition and the acknowledge_data_loss requirement, leaving nothing to inference.

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