delete_vng

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature, the safety guard (confirm), and details the behavior of delete_nodes (drain+detach+terminate) and force_delete (delete even if last non-template VNG). It does not mention reversibility or all side effects, but covers key behaviors.

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 well-structured with a bold warning, then bullet points for parameters. It is front-loaded with purpose. While slightly verbose with 'Args:' formatting, every sentence adds value, so it earns its length.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and destructive action, the description covers purpose, parameters, and edge cases (force_delete condition). It lacks explanation of return values, but an output schema exists to fill that gap. Overall 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter beyond the schema: confirm as safety guard, account_id optional with env var default, delete_nodes behavior, force_delete condition. This adds significant value for correct tool invocation.

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 an AWS VNG (launch spec)' with a 'DESTRUCTIVE' warning, immediately identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_vng, update_vng, get_vng.

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 explains that confirm=true is required for execution and provides conditions for force_delete. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the destructive nature and parameter details offer implicit guidance.

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