vibekit_delete_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Permanently' discloses irreversibility, and 'all its data' discloses the destructive scope. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or effects on associated resources (e.g., domains/schedules), but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the key action and scope. No filler or redundant content; every word contributes.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, irreversibility, and data scope. It does not mention return values or clarifications about associated resources, but the simplicity of the tool makes this adequate.

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 sole parameter appId has full schema coverage with description 'App ID or subdomain slug' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('hosted app'), with 'all its data' clarifying scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop/start/get app, and the permanence adds precision.

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 description implies usage for complete, irreversible app removal but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., stop_app for pausing, remove_domain for domain changes). Usage context is clear from the destructive nature but relies on inference.

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