delete_pod

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as a 'mutation' (implying a write/destructive action) but provides no details about consequences, reversibility, idempotency, or required permissions. The user is left unaware of potential side effects or safeguards.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single summary line plus an example. It avoids filler and gets directly to the point. The example variable block is useful for immediate invocation. It could be slightly more descriptive, but it is efficient.

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 delete operation with no annotations, output schema, or side-effect disclosure, the description is incomplete for safe usage. It lacks warnings or context about what happens when a pod is deleted, and there is no guidance on prerequisites. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is thin.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds 'Variables: id' and an example for id, but this is redundant with the schema. It adds no new semantic information beyond what's already present, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 includes 'mutation deletePod' which clearly indicates a delete operation on a pod. The tool name itself is highly explicit. While it doesn't use a full sentence like 'Deletes a pod,' the mutation name leaves no ambiguity about the action and target resource.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_access_group or update_pod. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or typical use cases. The description only provides the mutation name and an example variable, offering no context for tool selection.

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