Delete Power_feed

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true. The description goes beyond by explaining cascade behavior (e.g., deleting a device removes its interfaces, etc.) and the HTTP 204 response, adding valuable context not in annotations.

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 clear and well-structured, starting with the action and then providing important warnings. It is slightly longer due to cascade examples but each sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 simple input (one id) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: deletion behavior, cascade effects, and response format. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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% with a single 'id' parameter. The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema's 'Numeric id of the power_feed to delete.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a power_feed from NetBox by numeric id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools include many other delete tools, so it distinguishes by object type.

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 'DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE' and details NetBox's cascading delete behavior. It advises confirming the exact object and cascade effects with the user before calling, providing clear when-to-use and caution guidelines.

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