config_profiles_delete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description only restates 'Delete' and adds nothing beyond the annotations – no note on permanence, cascading effects on nodes using the profile, or failure conditions.

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?

Extremely short and waste-free, but the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness – it is a two-word restatement of the name.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits what an agent needs: whether deletion is irreversible, whether profiles attached to nodes can be deleted, and what a successful or failed call returns.

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% with a single well-documented uuid parameter ('UUID of the config profile'), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no format, lookup, or resolution detail beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Delete config profile'), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like config_profiles_update or config_profiles_create. However, it offers no differentiation among the many other delete tools in the ecosystem (squads_delete, hosts_delete, etc.) beyond the resource 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites stated. It does not say whether the profile must be detached from nodes first, nor what happens if the UUID is in use.

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