unit_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain that deletion is destructive, irreversible, or what downstream effects may occur. The 'confirm: Required' note hints at a safeguard, but its meaning is ambiguous.

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 very short, front-loaded, and has no filler. The Args list is compact. It sacrifices semantic richness but remains easy to scan and well organized.

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 no annotations or schema descriptions, this is insufficient. It omits how confirm should be provided, whether impersonate is optional, what deletion affects, and what the response indicates. The output schema exists but does not cover usage behavior.

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. The provided glosses ('Domain', 'Application names', 'Owning user') mostly restate the parameter names and lack type/format/value detail. 'confirm: Required' conflicts with the schema, where confirm is not required and has a default of false.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one or more Nginx Unit applications.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like unit_create and unit_list, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The only usage signal is implied by the verb 'Delete' and the resource name, which is weak.

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