Delete Scaleway IAM Application

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

The description exceeds the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the exact scope of destruction: deletion of all owned API keys, policy detachment, and immediate, irreversible authentication loss. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and consequences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential context.

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, irreversible tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its cascading effects, the required confirmation flag, and real-world implications. The agent has enough information to understand the operation and its risks.

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 only 50% (only confirm has a description). The description mentions 'Requires confirm=true' but adds nothing beyond the schema's own description for confirm. The application_id parameter receives no explanation about its format or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 clearly states the tool permanently deletes an IAM Application and enumerates the cascading effects (deletes API keys, detaches policies). It distinguishes itself from other IAM deletion tools like delete_api_key or delete_policy by targeting the application resource specifically.

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 explicitly requires confirm=true and warns about irreversible credential failure. It does not, however, contrast this destructive deletion with alternative actions like updating or disabling the application, which are available among sibling tools.

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