delete_deployment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so safety is partly covered. The description adds value beyond them: the cascade behavior (deleting the deployment's pods), the 'no undo' irreversibility, and the dry_run preview path — all genuinely useful behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with severity and risk labels, then the dry-run hint, then args. Efficient overall, though dry_run is stated twice (body and Args), a minor redundancy.

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 destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers risk, cascade scope, preview path, and all params. Minor gaps remain — no mention of graceful vs immediate deletion or confirmation requirements — but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it documents all four params, including namespace default behavior ('omit for the target's default namespace'), dry_run semantics, and target being a config name. Brief but compensates for the total schema gap.

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 and resource ('Delete a deployment') and adds scope ('and its pods'), which distinguishes it from delete_pod in the sibling set. It does not name sibling alternatives directly, but the cascading-pods language is enough for an agent to tell it apart.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or named alternatives despite many relevant siblings (delete_pod, rollout_undo_deployment, scale_deployment to zero). It only tells the agent how to preview via dry_run, not when this tool is the right choice over rolling back or scaling down.

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