pool_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses that deletion is irreversible, that dry_run is enforced even for protected pools, and explains the cascading consequence of deleting the mgr-owned pool on every later call. This goes well beyond the minimal 'delete a pool behavior.

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 front-loaded with the most critical warning first, followed by safe usage pattern, guardrails, and then parameter docs. Every sentence earns its place; the repetition of irreversibility reinforces the danger without bloating the text.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: safe preview, protected pools, parameter sources, and downstream consequences. No critical context is missing for an agent to make an informed invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It adds meaning to each parameter: pool_name comes from pool_ls, dry_run controls preview mode, and target refers to a Ceph target from config with an explicit 'omit for the default' instruction. This is exactly the clarity the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a pool — destroys all of its data.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like pool_create and set_pool_* by emphasizing irreversibility and data destruction, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 practical guidance: use dry_run=True to preview, and it warns that .mgr/.rgw.root and mgr-owned pools are refused because deleting them severs the transport. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the exclusion criteria and safe-invocation workflow provide strong usage context.

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