delete_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive cascade effect: deleting the application will also delete scan configs, scans, and vulnerabilities. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the simple 'Delete an application' statement, though it stops short of explicitly stating irreversibility or permission requirements.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently adds the crucial cascading behavior. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required parameter), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the core deletion action and the critical side effects. A minor gap is the lack of an explicit warning about irreversibility, but the cascade disclosure covers the most important contextual need.

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% for the single app_id parameter, which is clearly described as the unique identifier of the application to delete. The tool description does not add additional parameter-related meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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+resource, 'Delete an application,' and distinguishes this tool from sibling deletion tools like delete_scan and delete_schedule by targeting the application itself. It also clarifies the cascading scope by mentioning deletion of associated scan configs, scans, and vulnerabilities.

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 when an application and its entire associated data need to be removed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_scan or delete_scan_config. No exclusions or alternative tool guidance is provided, so guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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