app_events_delete_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing — not whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it cascades to related localizations/screenshots, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. For a destructive mutation endpoint this is a critical gap.

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?

It is short, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency: the same string is repeated twice in parentheses, which is pure redundancy with zero informational payoff.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum warn of irreversibility or describe side effects. It provides none of this, leaving an agent unable 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 100% with a single required 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the path template's implicit {id}, but the schema itself does the necessary work.

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 restates the operation in raw HTTP form (DELETE /v1/appEvents/{id}), duplicated verbatim inside parentheses. It technically identifies the verb and resource, but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the tool name 'app_events_delete_instance' already communicates, and offers nothing to distinguish it from siblings like app_events_update_instance or app_events_get_instance.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as updating or retrieving an app event. Nothing tells the agent under what circumstances deletion is appropriate.

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