ise_remove_deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that credentials are destroyed ('and its stored credentials') and the confirm=true requirement, which are meaningful irreversible-mutation details. However, it doesn't state whether the action is reversible, whether it only affects local config vs remote, or what happens to other deployments referencing this one. The core destructive behavior and its guard are disclosed, so a 3 is fair.

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 efficient sentence front-loading the primary action and the critical safety requirement. Every word earns its place. It could arguably be more expansive, but for a destructive confirmation-gated tool this is appropriately terse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential safety measures (confirm gate, credential destruction) and both parameters are documented in the schema. It's slightly light on what happens after removal (return values/confirmation) and edge cases, but for a 2-param tool with complete schema coverage, this is adequate if not rich.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (deployment: 'Name, slug, or number...'; confirm: 'Must be true to actually remove it.'). The description adds the confirm=true requirement which reinforces the confirm parameter's semantics. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3 and the description adds marginal value consistent with that.

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 action ('Remove a deployment from the registry') with a specific verb+resource, and adds the notable detail that it also removes stored credentials. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like ise_add_deployment or ise_update_deployment, though the verb 'remove' is self-evident against its siblings, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 requires confirm=true, which is the key usage gate. However, it doesn't provide when-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., what to use to deactivate a deployment without removing credentials, or that this is distinct from ise_update_deployment). The confirm requirement is clear context but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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