delete_service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context: deletion wipes settings as well as the service, it is irreversible, the change is persisted and applied asynchronously by the scheduler, and the tool cannot confirm the outcome. The async/no-liveness-confirmation disclosure is the kind of trait annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short clauses, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and its irreversibility before the alternative and the async caveat. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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?

For a one-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers danger, alternative, and execution model — nearly everything needed. The only small gap is return/error behavior (what happens if the service does not exist), which 'cannot confirm it is live' only partially implies.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'service' as the identifier to delete. The description adds nothing about format or resolution (name vs UUID) beyond the schema, so this sits at 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a service') and immediately scopes it ('and all its settings'), which distinguishes it from narrower siblings like instance_delete and plugin_delete. The contrast with convert_service makes the boundary unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative ('Use convert_service to take it offline') and encodes the when-not condition via 'not reversible' — an agent wanting a reversible takedown is steered away. This is exactly the when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance the dimension rewards.

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