Delete service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by spelling out the concrete consequences: irreversibility and release of the MagicDNS name and virtual IP. It stops short of noting permission/auth requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the irreversible consequence immediately after. Every clause 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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece (side effects of deletion). It is nearly complete, lacking only auth/permission expectations that an agent might otherwise assume.

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% for the single serviceName parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about name format or scoping (tailnet-level uniqueness), leaving this at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('Tailscale Service'), which cleanly separates it from sibling operations like tailscale_get_service, tailscale_update_service, and tailscale_list_services. It is clear without needing to name a sibling, though it does not explicitly justify itself against delete-adjacent tools such as tailscale_delete_device.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., update_service, or deauthorizing hosts via list_service_hosts), nor any stated prerequisites or confirmation conventions. Usage is only implied by the tool name, which is the minimum bar.

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