skypilot_serve_down

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts not in the annotations: the purge behavior (force deletion despite errors) and that a request_id is returned. It does not disclose whether teardown is reversible or what errors trigger the purge path.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the targeting options, then the escape hatch and return value. Zero filler.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with an output schema (so return-value detail is omitted correctly) and destructiveHint coverage, the description supplies the decisions an agent must make: how to target services and when to force deletion. The main remaining gap is the absence of usage guidance relative to sibling teardown tools.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does: it explains that service_names and delete_all are alternative selection modes and that purge=True forces deletion despite errors. Defaults and types come from the schema. The description does not mention that all three parameters are optional or what the default behavior is with no arguments.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Tear down service(s)') that distinguishes it from siblings like skypilot_serve_status or skypilot_serve_logs. The phrasing 'tear down' is slightly informal versus the sibling skypilot_serve_up, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 states the two alternative targeting modes ('Specify service_names or set delete_all=True'), which tells the agent how to use the tool but not when. There is no explicit condition distinguishing when to use this versus skypilot_serve_terminate_replica.

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