deployado_delete_app

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true/idempotentHint=false annotations by explaining what is destroyed (deployments, releases, env vars), how running containers are removed (queued agent action on the app server), the transient 409 failure mode, and that the action is irreversible. That is exactly the added behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope, then the container/queue mechanic, then the failure condition and irreversibility caveat. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs before calling.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers blast radius, side effects, transient error handling, and reversibility — everything needed to call it safely and interpret a failure.

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?

Only one parameter, app_id, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('App ID (UUID)'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no format or lookup hints beyond what the schema already states.

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 (delete) and resource (app) plus the exact cascade scope: deployments, releases, and environment variables. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like deployado_delete_project or deployado_delete_env purely on the resource and cascade described.

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?

Gives concrete operational context: it fails with 409 deploy_in_progress while a deploy runs and should be retried after it finishes. It does not, however, point at any alternative tool or say when a non-destructive path (e.g. update_app or stopping a service) is preferable.

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