delete_service

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does the single most important thing: declares the operation irreversible. It stops there, leaving out permissions required, what happens to dependent resources, and whether dry_run provides a safe preview — significant gaps for a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the irreversibility warning in parentheses. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a destructive two-parameter tool with no annotations the description should at minimum explain dry_run and any preconditions. As written, an agent could call it without ever realizing a preview mode exists.

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, but it explains neither the required 'name' (format, full path vs short name) nor the 'dry_run' flag, which is the tool's only safety valve. At best 'a service' hints that name identifies the target.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a service') plus the persistence qualifier ('permanently'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It never names the sibling tools (list_services, get_service, restart_service) to sharpen the boundary, but the delete-vs-read/restart distinction is evident from the verb alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as restart_service or set_replicas, nor any preconditions (confirmation, ownership, dependency checks) before deleting. The only implied guidance is the word 'permanently', which warns but does not route.

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