delete_trust_zone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details about batch operations and single/batch behavior, but does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or side effects like orphaned components. The return value is noted, but the destructive nature is only implied by the verb 'delete.'

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 brief summary, usage instructions, and argument/return sections. It is slightly redundant, repeating batch info in the first sentence and the following paragraph, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple delete operation, the description covers the main functionality: single and batch deletion, parameter handling, and return type. It does not delve into prerequisites or error cases, but the output schema and complete parameter schema compensate. The description is adequate for a straightforward delete tool.

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%, and the description largely restates the schema's parameter descriptions. It does add some value by clarifying the single-vs-batch usage and that 'ids' ignores 'id', but the schema already documents this. Thus the description contributes minimal additional parameter meaning beyond the baseline.

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 tool 'Delete a trust zone' and 'deletes one or more trust zones from the system architecture.' The verb-resource pairing is specific and the batch operation detail distinguishes it from other delete_* tools that lack batch support.

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 clear context for using the tool, explaining single-item vs batch modes and how to provide parameters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the resource type makes it obvious which sibling is relevant. No exclusions are stated.

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