delete_strategy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context rather than establish the safety profile. It adds the permanence warning ("cannot be undone") and describes the success result ("confirmation message"), useful return information not present in structured fields. It omits behavior for non-existent strategies or error cases, but that is a minor gap.

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 zero filler; the destructive scope is front-loaded before the usage caveat and the return note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, a fully documented two-parameter schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials including the success return. It does not address failure modes (e.g., deleting a non-existent strategy) or the non-idempotent implications of the annotations, leaving a small gap.

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% and both parameters (application, strategy_name) are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, naming, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ("permanently delete a deployment strategy configuration") and names the system (Spinnaker), so an agent can distinguish it from delete_pipeline or list_strategies. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling delete/save operations, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 a clear usage condition ("only when a strategy is no longer needed") and reinforces the irreversibility, which signals caution. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., list_strategies to resolve a name, or save_strategy to modify instead of delete), so exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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