delete_config_path

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds substantial context: the operation is reversible because the subtree is captured first, the undo re-creates it, dry_run previews, and the admin/root refusal applies even under dry_run and must be reported rather than previewed. This is behavior an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 a risk/tag banner and the core action, followed by refusal semantics and an Args block. All sentences earn their place; the only cost is mild redundancy in restating parameter meaning twice.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers reversibility, dry-run behavior, and the critical refusal case that would otherwise cause a confusing failure. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 carries the burden, and it defines all three params: path (slash-separated config path), dry_run (preview without deleting), and target (proxy target name, omit for default). It adds meaningful format and default semantics, though not exhaustively.

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+resource (delete a caddy config subtree) with an explicit risk marker, and reads distinctly from siblings like get_config_value or set_config_value. An agent can identify the operation 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 clear when-to-use guidance (dry_run=True to preview) and explicit when-not-to-use conditions (refuses the 'admin' subtree and config root, including under dry_run). It does not name a sibling alternative, but the conditional guidance is specific and actionable.

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