Uninstall application

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed, notes that server backups remain, requires the applications:manage permission, and mandates a confirmation workflow. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations alone.

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 impact statement is front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and the permission requirement. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded or restated.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers impact, what survives, ordering guidance, permission scope, confirmation requirement, and result polling. Everything needed to invoke it safely is present.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, including the meaning of confirmed and acknowledge_data_loss. The description reinforces the confirmation semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource (uninstall a managed application) and precisely scopes what is removed (containers, configuration, saved credentials, application data) versus what survives (server backups). This distinguishes it from siblings like stop_application or rollback_application, which leave the installation intact.

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 preconditions (read the installation, obtain explicit user confirmation of data loss) and postconditions (poll installation and events for the final result). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like stop_application or reinstall_os, so it stops short of a 5.

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