vibecloud_app_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: the deletion removes the app, domain, and A record, and critically warns that 'app host vẫn có thể tính phí' (the app host may still be billed) — a valuable caveat for a destructive operation. It also notes the deletion happens after user approval. The unrelated deployment-timing sentences ('app host đầu tiên ~2–3 phút...') are noise that detracts, but the core behavioral warnings are solid.

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: the same fact is repeated in two languages ('Alias tương thích của cloud_app_delete. / Compatibility alias.'), and a deployment-timing sentence appears copy-pasted from a deploy tool, adding nothing to a delete operation. The most important information (what gets deleted, billing warning) is buried mid-text rather than front-loaded, and the bilingual duplication wastes sentences.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers several essential facts: what is removed (app/domain/A record), the post-deletion billing risk, and the approval precondition. However, it never explains the approval flow itself, what happens to the app host, what the tool returns, or how sandbox mode affects deletion, and the off-topic deployment timing adds confusion rather than completing the picture.

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 50%: sandbox is documented in the schema ('Thử 0đ, không tạo hạ tầng thật / Sandbox, no charge'), but app_id has no schema description. The description partially compensates by implying that app_id must reference an approved, live app from git, which adds selection guidance. It does not, however, fully clarify app_id semantics or how sandbox interacts with the deletion and billing behavior described.

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 explicitly identifies the operation as deleting an app ('Delete an approved app', 'xoá app/domain/A record') and clarifies that it is a compatibility alias of cloud_app_delete, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool. The meaning is clear despite being buried under unrelated deployment-timing sentences. It loses a point because the purpose statement is fragmented and mixed with off-topic content.

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?

'Alias tương thích của cloud_app_delete / Compatibility alias' tells the agent this tool behaves identically to a known sibling, which is useful routing context. It also implies a prerequisite: only an app the user has approved for deletion can be deleted ('Sau khi user duyệt xoá'). However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this alias versus cloud_app_delete, nor contrasts it with other app management siblings.

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