cloud_insts_rm_placegrp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions that removal requires the instance to be in a group and that bare metal servers are unsupported, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The notes on ID resolution add context but leave gaps in behavioral traits.

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 structured with a clear purpose first, followed by constraints, parameter list, and resolution notes. It is somewhat verbose but each section adds value. The list of optional parameters (extra_headers, etc.) could be more concise, but overall it is well-organized.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, constraints, and parameter resolution. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but for a removal tool this is acceptable. The context signals (7 params, 3 required) are adequately addressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It adds meaning for the required parameters (project_id and region_id) by specifying they must be numeric and how to resolve names. However, it does not describe the purpose of instance_id beyond the tool's name, and extra parameters are only listed without semantic explanation.

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 ('Remove an instance from its current server group'), specifying the verb (remove) and the resources (instance, server group). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cloud_insts_add_placegrp (add) and cloud_placegrps_del (delete server group).

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 provides context for when to use: 'The instance must be in a server group to be removed. Bare metal servers do not support server groups.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools indicate when to add or delete groups. The resolution notes for project and region IDs also guide correct usage.

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