uninstall_app

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool removes an app (destructive operation) and names the alternative for non-destructive reset. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether user data is removed, whether the deletion is irreversible, or any permission/authentication requirements), which would be useful for an agent deciding to invoke a destructive tool.

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 three sentences long, all substantive. The first sentence states the action and mechanism. The second explains use cases. The third provides an exclusion rule. No wasted words or redundant content. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 is a simple deletion operation with 2 parameters (100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and an alternative tool. However, it lacks any mention of return values or success/failure indicators, and for a destructive operation, the absence of behavioral notes about data persistence or authorization (e.g., does the app need to be debuggable?) makes it slightly less complete than ideal.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by implying the context for 'serial' (adb -s, optional when one device) beyond the schema's 'Target device serial' and gives a concrete example for 'package' (com.example.app) that reinforces the schema's generic description. This justifies a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('uninstall') and resource ('app by package name'), and explicitly cites the underlying mechanism ('adb uninstall'). It immediately distinguishes from siblings like clear_app_data, stop_app, and install_app by naming use cases (clean install, first-run verification) and an alternative tool (clear_app_data).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (remove a build before clean install, verify first-run behavior) and when not to use it ('To keep the app but reset it, prefer clear_app_data'). This directly differentiates from the sibling tool clear_app_data, giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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