delete_load_balancer

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description details the irreversible cascade deletion and VIP release, explains the authorization requirement, and describes the refusal behavior for k8s-managed resources. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by scope, effects, exceptions, and usage instructions. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, side effects, authorization, constraints, and parameter usage (id source, confirm requirement). It provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description reiterates that 'id comes from list_load_balancers' and the importance of confirm, but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 tool 'Delete a load balancer' and lists the cascade effects (listener/pool/members/health-monitor, VIP floating IP), distinguishing it from creation or listing tools. It also notes the exception for k8s-managed load balancers, further clarifying its scope.

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 explicitly requires scope 'services:write', advises to pass confirm:true only after user approval, and warns that it is refused for k8s-managed load balancers (directing to Kubernetes Service instead). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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