delete_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation is DESTRUCTIVE, requires explicit confirmation, and that cascade=true (default) also deletes managed Kubernetes resources. This surfaces critical side effects clearly. It doesn't mention reversibility or permission requirements, but the key destructive behavior is well-documented.

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, zero fluff. The destructive warning is front-loaded in bold, followed by the confirmation requirements and cascade side-effect. Every sentence earns its place.

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 operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description thoroughly explains the safety-critical behavior. It has an output schema which may document return values, so it needn't cover those. The main gap is not describing what happens to the app in ArgoCD vs the managed resources separately, but the delete behavior for both is implied. Reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely for parameter meaning. The description explains the critical parameters: confirm must be true, confirm_name must match the app name for confirmation, and cascade default deletes managed resources. It notably omits instance (which defaults to 'primary') and doesn't add nuance beyond confirming what schema fields already convey, but covers the safety-critical params effectively.

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 'Delete an ArgoCD application' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly labeling it DESTRUCTIVE, which separates it from read tools like get_application and list_applications in the sibling list.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance for the destructive confirmation flow: 'Requires explicit confirmation. Set confirm=true AND confirm_name matching the application name to proceed.' It lacks explicit exclusions/when-not-to-use but the destructive warning implies caution, and the confirmation requirements clearly gate usage.

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