Unregister an Entra application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: it mutates a live environment, requires confirm: true, defaults to a dry run, and shells out via the active pac auth profile. It falls short of stating reversibility or permission requirements, but covers the mutation/safety profile well.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the writing is mostly economical, but 'requires confirm: true' is stated twice in nearly identical phrasing, which is redundant filler in an otherwise short description.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (dry-run default, live-environment mutation, profile selection). It could be stronger on consequences and reversibility, but nothing critical to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are documented in the schema itself, establishing the baseline of 3. The description echoes the confirm and profile behavior rather than adding new syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Remove an Entra application's tenant registration') and clearly contrasts with its sibling cs_admin_register_application. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is implied through the confirm requirement and the dry-run note, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. re-registering via cs_admin_register_application). It is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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