Delete Generated Resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the dual-mode nature (preview vs. apply), which is useful, but it omits critical information about a destructive operation, such as irreversibility, cascading effects, idempotency, or whether it requires confirmation. The agent is left unaware of the consequences of 'apply' beyond a generic deletion.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('Preview or apply deletion') and adds the contextual qualifier. While it could be more detailed, the structure is clean and easily scannable.

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 four parameters and zero annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain the meaning of 'preview' vs. 'apply' in practical terms, what 'conflictStrategy' does, or what happens to dependent resources. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool correctly with the information provided.

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 by explaining parameters, but it doesn't. It never defines 'resourceName', 'mode', 'previewHash', or 'conflictStrategy'. The enums and defaults in the schema are uninterpreted, and the description adds no semantic value about how these parameters affect behavior. This is a critical gap.

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 a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('manifest-managed generated resource'), distinguishing it from siblings like scaffold_resource or list_resources. It also introduces the preview/apply dual-mode behavior, which is a distinct attribute. Could be more explicit about the scope, but it's markedly better than a tautology.

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 usage: use 'preview' to simulate deletion and 'apply' to execute it, which gives context but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. It doesn't mention any preconditions, confirmations, or relationship to preview_scaffold, leaving implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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