hosts_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but doesn't specify consequences (e.g., data loss, impact on associated resources), permissions required, error conditions, or response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Delete') and resource ('host'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (a destructive deletion operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like irreversibility, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that permanently removes resources, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'uuid' documented as 'Host UUID to delete'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a host from Remnawave'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like hosts_get, hosts_list, and hosts_update by specifying deletion rather than retrieval or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like nodes_delete or users_delete, which slightly limits sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the host's UUID), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting nodes or users), or contextual cues (e.g., use after hosts_list to identify targets). With multiple deletion tools in the sibling list, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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