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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that deletion is permanent and irreversible, which is the most critical behavioral trait for a destructive delete operation. It does not mention permissions or side effects on related resources, but the core destructive nature is clearly conveyed.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and the irreversible warning are both front-loaded and necessary, making this an appropriately concise and structured description.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description is largely complete: it states the action, the irreversibility, and the id comes from well-defined schema context. It could mention return values or post-deletion effects, but those are not essential for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 input schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to since the schema is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb and resource: permanently delete an instance. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like pause_instance, resume_instance, and rebuild_instance by signaling a terminal, irreversible action.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pause_instance or instance_term. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the instance must be stopped first, or caution about using it only when an instance is no longer needed.

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