cloud_app_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool deletes the app, domain, and A record, and that the app host may still be charged afterward — an important behavioral consequence. However, it does not state whether the action is irreversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens on failure, so it is only partially transparent.

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 short but poorly structured: it leads with unrelated timing information about git apps ('app host đầu tiên ~2–3 phút, deploy sau đó 10–20 giây') before stating the actual deletion purpose. The core message is buried at the end, and the bilingual mixing creates noise. This is not an example of efficient front-loading.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, and the description gives the essential effect (delete app/domain/A record) and an important consequence (possible host charges). Still, it does not mention what the response will contain, how to confirm success, or any error-handling behavior. For a destructive tool, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters: 'sandbox' is well documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat it. For 'app_id', the description only weakly implies it should be an approved app's ID. It does not explain where to find app_id or distinguish it from other app-related identifiers, so it adds modest value at best.

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 includes a clear action-and-resource statement: 'Delete an approved app.' It also specifies what the deletion covers ('xoá app/domain/A record'), which adds precision. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'vibecloud_app_delete' or clarify what 'approved' means, so it is not a 5.

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 phrase 'Sau khi user duyệt xoá' gives a clear precondition: use the tool only after the user has approved the deletion. It also warns about a post-delete consequence ('app host vẫn có thể tính phí'), which informs the decision to delete. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough.

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