zadig_environment_service_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that dry_run defaults to true and that confirm=true is required, which is valuable safety information for a destructive operation. It does not detail consequences like what happens to associated resources, but the dry-run/confirm guard rail is a meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and object, then immediately adds the two most important behavioral constraints. Every word earns its place and there is no repetition of schema defaults.

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?

Given a destructive operation, no annotations, 7 parameters, and an output schema that may explain return values, the description covers the core action and safety gate but omits the meaning of optional parameters like not_delete_resource and production. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent selecting parameters confidently.

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 compensate for the 7 parameters. It only adds meaning for dry_run and confirm (defaults/requirement), while leaving project_key, production, not_delete_resource, env_name, and service_name semantically unexplained beyond their names. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a precise resource ('one service'), and the containing context ('Zadig environment'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like zadig_environment_delete (which deletes the whole environment) and zadig_environment_service_get/apply/list.

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?

The description implies the tool is for removing a single service from an environment and gives a critical usage requirement: confirm must be true to actually delete. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as zadig_environment_service_apply or zadig_environment_delete, so the agent must infer when this tool is preferred over those siblings.

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