ingress_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete an Ingress' which implies a destructive mutation, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting associated services), or provides confirmation. The return statement 'Status of the deletion operation' is vague without specifying format or possible outcomes.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are organized efficiently. However, the 'Returns' line could be more specific, and there's slight redundancy in repeating 'Kubernetes' for namespace 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 the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks crucial context: no error handling, no details on return format, no permissions or safety warnings, and no differentiation from sibling tools. For a deletion tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 adds meaningful context by explaining each parameter: 'context_name: The Kubernetes context name', 'namespace: The Kubernetes namespace', and 'name: The Ingress name'. This clarifies what each parameter represents beyond the schema's basic titles, though it doesn't provide format examples or constraints.

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 verb 'Delete' and resource 'an Ingress from the specified namespace', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like ingress_get, ingress_list, and ingress_update by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like pod_delete or deployment_delete beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this deletes Ingress resources, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the Ingress must exist), consequences, or when to choose deletion over other operations like updating. The sibling list includes ingress_create, ingress_get, ingress_list, and ingress_update, but no comparison is made.

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