delete_zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that deletion is irreversible from this tool yet briefly recoverable, but omits side effects (e.g., attached watering schedules/routines), required permissions, and error behavior for a destructive mutation.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the irreversibility caveat immediately following. No waste.

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?

Adds the one behavioral fact that matters most for a delete (recoverability window), but for a parameterized destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the effects on related entities and failure modes are left unstated.

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% and the description says only 'a zone', leaving both zone_id and device_id completely undocumented in schema and prose. It does not compensate for the coverage gap or clarify why device_id is required alongside zone_id.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Delete a zone') that is unmistakably distinct from siblings like rename_zone, add_zone, and set_zone_enabled. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the destructive operation is self-differentiating.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. The recoverability caveat implies the action is consequential, but the agent must infer the operational context.

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