Delete an application and all its versions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds materially beyond them: irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), the blast radius (all versions, but registry images untouched), and the two guard conditions that cause failure. This is exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Effectively one dense, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, but the parenthetical remedy clause makes it slightly hard to scan. Every clause still carries information, so it is close to optimal despite the density.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, prerequisites, failure modes, side-effect boundaries, and irreversibility. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the semantics of max_versions (default 0 means refuse if any versions exist, with the two remedies) and stressing that application must be an exact name. dry_run is left to its own schema description, hence not a 5.

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 (delete) and resource (one application plus every version under it) and frames the intent (clean up a test application). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling edgegap_delete_app_version, which is named as the narrower alternative.

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 and refusal conditions: refused while any deployment is running, and refused when versions exceed max_versions. It names the alternative tool (edgegap_delete_app_version) and the escalation path (raise max_versions after developer agreement), so the agent knows exactly what to do when blocked.

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