Delete Service

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

Adds value beyond annotations by explaining cascading deletes and the irreversible nature, as well as the HTTP 204 response. The description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint: true) and provides concrete behavioral context, though the cascade examples are generic rather than service-specific.

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: first sentence defines the action, then a bold warning followed by explanation and return value. No redundant words; all sentences add value.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the resource, the required id, the destructive behavior, cascading effects, user confirmation requirement, and the expected success response. No gaps.

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% (id parameter described). The description confirms the parameter is a numeric id but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema description. 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 the action ('delete'), the resource ('service'), and the identifier ('by numeric id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which target different resources (e.g., netbox_delete_site, netbox_delete_device). The purpose is immediately obvious.

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?

Provides strong guidance: warns it is destructive and irreversible, explains cascading deletes, and instructs to confirm with user before calling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., consider using a GET first to verify) or suggest alternative tools.

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