delete_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Destructive operation' but fails to disclose other behavioral traits such as required permissions, synchronicity, success/error responses, or side effects beyond the warning. For a destructive tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides a critical warning. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., mentioning required vs optional parameters) without adding 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 (2 required), no parameter-level descriptions, and is destructive, the description fails to cover essential usage context. It omits how to use optional parameters like cluster and namespace, and does not explain return values despite an output schema existing. The description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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%, yet the description only clarifies the purpose of 'resource_type' and 'name' (by type and name). The 'force', 'cluster', and 'namespace' parameters are left unexplained. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Delete', the resource type 'any Kubernetes/OpenShift resource', and specifies the parameters 'by type and name'. It effectively distinguishes this generic delete tool from the numerous sibling tools that delete specific resources.

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 includes a warning about destructive operations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this generic delete tool versus the many specific delete sibling tools (e.g., delete_pod, delete_service). There is no when-to-use or when-to-avoid context.

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