uninstall_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the destructive profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the 'current site' scope, which is useful, but says nothing about reversibility, whether app data is permanently deleted, or required permissions.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste; the action and scope come first, followed by the practical how-to for the id. Nothing extraneous.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the id source, which is enough to invoke correctly. A brief note on irreversibility would have closed the remaining gap, though annotations already signal destructiveness.

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% and the schema already documents the id parameter with its source (list_apps / get_app). The description merely repeats that provenance, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (uninstall/remove) and resource (an installed application) plus scope (from the current site). An agent can distinguish it from install_app, update_app, and update_app_review without inspecting any schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent how to obtain the required id (from list_apps `id` field or get_app), which is concrete prerequisite guidance. It stops short of stating when-to-use vs when-not relative to sibling lifecycle tools like update_app, so it is not a full 5.

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