delete_app_sagemaker

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete', which implies destructiveness, but it does not disclose irreversibility, potential failure conditions (e.g., if the app is running), or consequences for associated data. This is minimal transparency for a destructive 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 an extremely concise single sentence with zero filler words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action. While it is terse, it earns a 4 for appropriate size and clarity without unnecessary elaboration.

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 delete operation with 4 required parameters and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not mention whether the operation is reversible, whether it can fail under certain conditions (e.g., app still running), or any validation steps. The tool complexity is low, but the risk of destructive action warrants more behavioral context than a single phrase.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive titles and descriptions (e.g., 'The ID of the domain in which the app resides'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies per the rubric.

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 'Delete a SageMaker App' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('SageMaker App'), exactly matching the tool name. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'describe_app_sagemaker' and 'create_app_sagemaker' and other delete tools for different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., app must exist or be inactive), circumstances for deletion, or exclusions. The description merely restates the action without contextual direction.

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