winops_apps_uninstall

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, so the description doesn't need to restate destructiveness. It adds value by specifying the return format and elevation requirement, which are not in the annotations. It does not contradict anything, and the inclusion of an example and notes provide useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 well-organized with a brief opening sentence, a return format section, an example, and concise notes. Every sentence adds value (prerequisite, elevation, return structure), with no fluff or repetition. It's front-loaded with the purpose and then provides necessary details.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (2 params, destructive action, no output schema beyond description), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to get the required parameter, elevation conditions, and return format. It doesn't mention edge cases (e.g., package not found), but that is acceptable given the annotations and schema. It's complete enough for an agent to use safely.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (package_name and all_users). The description enhances this with an example call and links package_name to the source tool, plus implicit elevation context for all_users. This goes beyond the bare schema, earning a 4.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Uninstall an AppX/Windows Store package by its PackageFullName.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like winops_apps_list (listing) and winops_process_kill (process termination), making the tool's purpose 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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Get PackageFullName from winops_apps/list.' and notes elevation requirement for all-user/system packages, effectively telling the agent prerequisites and conditions. This is explicit and actionable.

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