caddy_config_delete

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and not read-only. The description usefully adds that deleting a parent node cascades to all descendants and provides a concrete example, plus the confirm=true safety guard. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: the core action is first, then the critical cascade behavior with an example, then the required confirmation flag. Each sentence earns its place.

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 delete operation, the description covers the target path, the example, cascade semantics, and the safety gate. It omits details like behavior for nonexistent paths or response/error values, but annotations and schema already cover the key safety profile.

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%, and both parameters already have descriptive documentation in the schema. The description repeats the confirm requirement and gives an example path, adding little new meaning about the parameters themselves.

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 config at a JSON path') and the resource (Caddy config), with a precise definition of deleting a node and its descendants. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like caddy_remove_route, but the JSON-path framing makes the scope reasonably distinct.

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 given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as caddy_config_set or caddy_remove_route. The confirm=true requirement is a safety parameter, not a usage-or-alternative guideline.

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