Uninstall a program

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds procedural context the annotations cannot: execution is mediated by a named template whose parameter shape must be fetched first. It does not restate the confirm/dry_run safeguards, but the schema documents those at full coverage.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the operation front-loaded and the dependency instruction second. Every clause carries actionable information.

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, template-driven action with 8 params and an output schema, the description covers the essential gaps: what it does and how to obtain the param contract. Minor omission is that it doesn't mention the endpoint-vs-group fan-out or the dry_run default, both of which are documented in the schema rather than the description.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: the freeform 'params' object's contents are defined by the uninstall_program template and must be resolved via action1_get_action_template. That is exactly the missing semantic the empty additionalProperties schema cannot convey.

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 ('Uninstall software') and identifies the underlying mechanism (the uninstall_program template), which separates it from sibling mutation tools like action1_deploy_package or action1_run_script. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, keeping it below a 5.

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 second sentence gives a concrete prerequisite: call action1_get_action_template to learn the params schema. That is a real routing/sequencing instruction an agent needs. It stops short of when-not guidance (e.g., bulk group uninstalls vs single endpoint) or advice on using dry_run first.

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