Delete Cluster

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing cascading delete effects with concrete examples, emphasizing irreversibility, and specifying the HTTP 204 response. This provides rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not cover.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear action statement, prominent warning, detailed explanation of cascading, user confirmation instruction, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 destructive nature and cascading behavior, the description covers essential aspects—action, dangers, confirmation step, and expected response. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's impact and use it safely, even without an output schema.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description reiterates 'numeric id' but adds no new semantic details. As the schema already provides sufficient meaning, the marginal contribution is small but the integration is clear.

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 tool deletes a cluster from NetBox by numeric id, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools by naming the specific object type (cluster) and providing unique warnings about cascading deletes.

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 explicitly warns about destructive and irreversible behavior, explains cascading deletes with examples, and instructs to confirm with the user before calling. While it does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or alternatives, the strong caution suffices for safe usage.

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