pool_delete

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

No annotations provided, yet the description fully discloses high risk, irreversibility, data destruction, and permission requirements. This is comprehensive and transparent.

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?

Well-structured with a concise summary, clear breakdown, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no extraneous content.

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?

Provides complete context for a delete mutation: functionality, risks, prerequisites, and parameter details. No output schema needed for a write operation.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter: pool_name source, dry_run function, target meaning. Adds significant value beyond schema.

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 clearly states 'Delete a pool' with emphasis on destructive nature, distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like pool_create, pool_ls, etc.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on using dry_run for preview and mentions the required approver. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the warning suffices.

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