instances_delete_bulk

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: it clarifies the hosts are NOT stopped, that the change is persisted to the database and applied asynchronously by the scheduler, and that the tool cannot confirm liveness. These are exactly the caveats an agent needs before calling a destructive bulk operation.

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 compact clauses, zero filler, with the destructive scope and the sibling alternative front-loaded before the caveats. Every sentence carries distinct 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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, it covers effect (unregister), non-effect (hosts keep running), persistence/async semantics, verification limits, and the single-vs-bulk alternative. Nothing material is missing.

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% for the single `instances` array parameter, so the schema already documents it as hostnames to delete. The description adds only the quantifier "several" and the notion that entries are UI/API-registered, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Unregister several UI/API-registered instances") plus the crucial scope qualifier that the hosts keep running. This is immediately distinguishable from instance_delete and instance_stop, which are named or implied in the sibling list.

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: "Use instance_delete for one," which names the alternative and the condition that selects it. Combined with "several" in the opening clause, the bulk-vs-single decision is fully determined.

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