delete_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the key non-obvious consequence—a deleted app's webhooks become global—which is exactly the kind of side effect an agent must know. It stops short of stating whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, what permissions are needed, or what a successful response looks like, so coverage is partial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the single most important side effect. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation and its most surprising side effect, which is a reasonable baseline. The gaps—irreversibility, expected response, and the fate of other app-scoped resources (test IDs, OTP secrets, simulation configs)—matter more precisely because there are no annotations to backstop the agent.

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 for the bare app_id (title 'App Id'). It adds a real constraint—the id must reference a registered app—and implies the app may own webhooks, but it never says how to obtain a valid id (e.g., via list_apps). For a single self-evident parameter this is adequate but thin.

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 ('a registered app'), cleanly distinguishing it from siblings like register_app, set_app, and list_apps. The second sentence adds a meaningful scope qualifier about webhook ownership, so an agent can identify this as the removal operation without ambiguity.

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 intended use—removing an app—is easily inferred from the verb, and the webhook side effect signals a consequence worth weighing before calling. However, the description never explicitly contrasts this with alternatives (e.g., 'to create an app use register_app') or states prerequisites such as needing a valid registered app_id, so routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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