vast_delete_archived_zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is permanent, which is a critical behavioral trait, but it does not detail any prerequisites (e.g., zone must be archived), potential side effects on associated data, or permission requirements. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no filler or redundant information, earning every word 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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose. However, it omits important contextual details like the requirement that the zone must already be archived and what happens to any associated entities, which could lead to errors if called in the wrong state. Given the tool's simplicity, slightly more context would make it complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with the parameter description 'Archived VAST zone ID', so the baseline is 3. The tool's description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, such as format or source of the ID.

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 ('archived VAST zone'), and the irreversibility ('permanently'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vast_delete_zone (which likely targets active zones) and vast_archive_zone (which archives rather than 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 implies the tool is for deleting zones that are already archived, but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives such as vast_delete_zone or vast_unarchive_zone. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case from the name and context.

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