ethora-app-delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, error handling, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs a critical 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical aspects like what happens post-deletion, confirmation prompts, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'appId' documented as 'appId for app'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Delete') and target resource ('an app by appId for the logged-in user'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ethora-app-delete-chat', which might handle chat-specific deletions, leaving room for potential confusion.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'ethora-app-update' for modifications or 'ethora-app-delete-chat' for chat-related deletions. It mentions 'for the logged-in user', but this is part of the purpose statement rather than usage instructions, offering minimal contextual direction.

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