acedatacloud_teardown_deployment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses irreversibility and the confirmation requirement, which are critical for a destructive tool. It does not mention the force parameter's behavior (deleting even on failure) but that is visible in the schema. The key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the critical warning. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. This is exemplary for a destructive tool.

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 operation, the description covers the core purpose and key constraint (irreversibility + confirmation). It could be more thorough about the force parameter or failure scenarios, but the schema fills those gaps. The description is adequate given the output schema exists and parameters are well-defined.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter insight—only implying the confirm requirement via 'requires confirmation' without explicitly naming it. It doesn't elaborate on force or application_id, but the schema already documents them adequately.

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 the action: 'Destroy a deployment and delete its application.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy, control, or get status. The destructive nature is immediately apparent.

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?

It provides clear context that this is an irreversible action requiring confirmation, which implicitly signals it's for teardown operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like acedatacloud_control_deployment for non-destructive control, so it stops short of a full 5.

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