Argocd Delete Application

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the word 'destructive' mostly restates that. The clause 'cascade=False removes only the Application object' adds genuine blast-radius context beyond the annotations, though it overlaps with the cascade schema description.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the verb and resource. The fragment 'destructive.' is awkward and largely redundant with the annotation, weakening the otherwise tight structure.

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?

With a full output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain returns. But for a destructive operation it omits practical guidance such as the default cascade=true behavior's consequences and when to prefer cascade=False or orphan.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including cascade, project, and propagation_policy. The description's cascade note adds marginal meaning but no syntax or behavior beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an application'), which clearly identifies the operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like argocd_delete_resource, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. It never mentions argocd_delete_resource or argocd_rollback_application, so the agent gets no routing context.

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