launcher_uninstall

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety class is known; the description's added value is stating what is destroyed (Shape is removed, home screen reverts to the previous launcher). It does not say whether the removal is reversible, whether app data is lost, or what happens when no previous launcher is recorded — meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the effect and the reverted state are stated immediately. Nothing needs trimming.

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, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core effect but omits the two-phase preview/approval behavior, the relationship to launcher_rollback/undo, and failure conditions such as no prior launcher. The rich parameter descriptions partly compensate, but the description itself is thin.

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%, and the two parameters (device serial, owner_approved preview gate) are fully documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about either parameter — notably it never mentions the preview/approval gate at all, leaving that entirely to the schema.

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 concrete verb and effect: restore the previous launcher to the home screen and uninstall 'Shape'. An agent can tell this is the inverse of launcher_install. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling launcher_rollback, which plausibly also restores prior launcher state, and 'Shape' is assumed to be the managed app rather than defined.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not guidance and names no alternative tool, even though launcher_rollback and undo are close siblings. The preview-then-approve workflow exists only in the `owner_approved` schema text, not in the description, so any procedural routing must be inferred.

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