cf_delete_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only implies a destructive mutation through the word 'Delete' and does not disclose irreversibility, default confirmation behavior, permission requirements, or what happens to bindings and dependent resources.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and structurally clean, though extremely terse for a destructive tool.

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 that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It states what the tool does but omits critical behavioral context such as irreversibility and default force/confirmation behavior, even though the schema covers the parameters.

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%, so both instanceName and force are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the structured input schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a service instance.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as cf_delete_app and cf_create_service, since the resource is explicitly a service instance rather than an app or other entity.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this tool is for removing a service instance, which is tautological with the tool name.

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