pier_delete_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the action is permanent, unrecoverable, and destroys all data, config, and volumes — critical behavioral traits for a destructive tool. This is exemplary transparency.

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 two short sentences with every word earning its place: the first states the action and scope, the second emphasizes irreversibility. It is front-loaded and avoids any filler.

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 one-parameter destructive action, the description covers the essential context: the operation is irreversible and destroys related resources. No output schema exists, and for a delete operation a success/failure response is generally assumed. The tool is simple enough that nothing critical 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?

The input schema already describes appId as 'The numeric ID of the app to delete' with 100% coverage, so the description adds nothing beyond that. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema adequately documents the only parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('an app and all its resources'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pier_stop_app or pier_rename_app. The phrase 'permanently delete' reinforces the destructive scope and leaves no doubt about the tool's purpose.

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 conveys clear context: use this when you intend to permanently delete an app and its resources. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the 'UNRECOVERABLE' warning effectively signals that this is for final removal, not for transient operations.

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