hookbase_delete_tunnel

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is destructive ('Delete') but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects. It also omits information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after deletion. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails behaviorally (e.g., permanent removal, cleanup of associated resources), what the expected outcome is, or potential errors. Given the complexity of a delete operation and the lack of structured data, the description should provide more contextual guidance.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'tunnel_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format examples, where to find tunnel IDs, or validation rules). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a localhost tunnel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools like hookbase_delete_cron_job or hookbase_delete_destination, but the specificity of 'localhost tunnel' provides some implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by not simply restating the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing tunnel), when-not-to-use scenarios, or relationships with sibling tools like hookbase_list_tunnels (to identify what to delete) or hookbase_create_tunnel. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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