routine_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on associated resources), or includes confirmation steps. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Delete') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource type and context.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what happens upon deletion (e.g., if it's permanent, if associated data is removed), error conditions, or return values. For a tool that permanently removes resources, more behavioral and safety information is warranted.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond implying the 'name' is for an existing routine, which is already clear from the schema. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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') and resource ('an existing Edge Routine (ER) from your Alibaba Cloud account'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'routine_create' or 'routine_get' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar destructive tools like 'delete_certificate' or 'deployment_delete' beyond naming the specific resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the routine must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose other tools like 'routine_list' for verification first. With many sibling tools, especially other deletion tools, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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