delete_namespace

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond them: 'no undo', the dry_run preview path, which namespaces are protected and why (DNS, pod networking), and the non-overridable credential self-revocation refusal. It even discloses that refusals fire on the dry_run path, preventing a false green preview.

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-loads [WRITE][risk=high] and the destructive scope, then preview mechanism, then refusal rules, then a clean Args block. Every sentence carries non-redundant operational information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still tells the agent what a preview would surface (a wouldDelete result) and enumerates the failure modes. For a high-risk mutation tool with four parameters, nothing material 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry semantics, and it does: dry_run is a preview switch, confirm acknowledges a protected control-plane namespace (and explicitly cannot override the SA refusal), target is a k8s target name from config. Only 'name' is left as the bare minimum, hence not a full 5.

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 with scope in caps ('Delete a namespace and EVERYTHING in it') and a risk tag, so it is immediately distinguishable from delete_pod, delete_deployment, and delete_job. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: pass dry_run=True to preview, confirm=True is required only for control-plane namespaces, and the ServiceAccount namespace is refused outright with confirm not overriding it. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the when-to-use and when-not rules are unusually concrete.

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