Công cụ MONA app delete

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing what is destroyed (app, domain, A record) and a residual side effect ('app host may still be charged'), which the destructive/idempotent hints do not convey. The git-app timing sentence appears copied from a deploy tool and is irrelevant to deletion.

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 alias identification is front-loaded, but the entry interleaves three language variants with repeated phrasing and includes deploy-timing content unrelated to a delete operation, wasting space without adding clarity.

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, no-output-schema tool the annotations already cover the safety profile and the description adds destruction detail plus residual billing, which is useful. However, the undocumented app_id and the stray timing sentence leave the definition only adequate, not complete.

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?

At 50% schema description coverage, app_id is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description says nothing about either parameter. The sandbox flag's meaning ('no charge') is only carried by the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Delete an approved app') and explicitly identifies itself as the compatibility alias of the sibling cloud_app_delete, so the agent can tell what it does and how it relates to the canonical tool. The bilingual repetition dilutes it slightly but intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Delete an approved app' and 'after user approves deletion' implies deletion is gated on prior approval, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing rule versus cloud_app_delete beyond the alias note. Usage is largely inferred.

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