delete_applications_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating 'Delete Application' and showing the HTTP method. It does not disclose permanence, cascading effects, or error behavior, which would be valuable for a destructive operation. Since the description contributes nothing beyond the annotations, it earns a low score.

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 description is exceptionally terse—three short lines that state the action, the HTTP method, and the argument. There is no redundancy or unnecessary verbosity. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While it is arguably too sparse for a helpful description, it achieves conciseness perfectly, which aligns with this dimension's focus on efficiency rather than completeness.

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?

Despite being a simple tool with only one parameter and an output schema, the description omits essential context for a destructive operation. It does not specify that this deletes a single application by ID (vs. bulk), nor does it address reversibility, confirmation, or potential side effects. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still leaves an agent uninformed about key calling considerations.

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 explaining the 'id' parameter. It only states 'id: Path parameter', which reiterates that it is a path parameter but does not clarify that it is the unique identifier of the application to be deleted. This is minimal and does not fully resolve the parameter's meaning, especially given the context of the application domain.

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 states 'Delete Application' and includes the DELETE HTTP method with the resource path '/api/v1/applications/{id}'. This clearly identifies the specific verb (delete) and resource (application by ID), and it naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_applications_bulk (which handles multiple) and update/get by verb and resource shape. The purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this deletes a single application by ID, nor does it reference delete_applications_bulk for bulk deletion or explain any prerequisites (e.g., existing application ID). The only implied context is that an ID is required, which is already evident from the schema. An agent has no help in deciding between this and the bulk variant.

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