plan_delete_resource

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only says 'Plan deleting' without clarifying whether this tool actually executes deletion, generates a dry-run plan, requires approval, or has side effects. The 'plan' wording hints at non-destructive planning, but this is not explicit, and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 only two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and avoids filler. The second sentence adds distinctiveness without unnecessary detail.

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 the tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully support safe invocation. The output schema may help with return structure, but the description does not cover operational semantics, prerequisites, or the nature of the 'plan' action, leaving significant gaps.

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 provides no parameter meaning beyond the names in the schema. The enum for 'resource' is self-explanatory, but the description does not explain how 'panel', 'resource', and 'resource_id' relate or what values are expected. This is a critical gap since the description must compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Plan deleting') and a specific resource ('panel resource'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling update and create tools. The sentence 'This is intentionally separate from update tools' explicitly differentiates it from plan_update_* and plan_create_* siblings.

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 clearly states it is for planning deletions and intentionally distinct from update tools, which tells the agent not to use it for updates. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over apply_change or other related tools, though the separation from update tools gives a useful exclusion.

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