delete_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses irreversibility and that it deprovisions Kubernetes workloads and removes all data. However, it omits details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or effects on dependent resources. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive for a destructive action.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical detail (irreversibility). Every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the effect. However, given the many sibling tools, it could provide more context on what happens to associated resources or how to verify deletion. The completeness is moderate.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters (instance_id and confirm). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses specific verbs 'delete', 'deprovisions', and 'removes' to clearly state that the tool permanently destroys a cache instance and its Kubernetes workload. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cache_delete (which likely operates on individual keys) and create_instance.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While it states the action is irreversible, it does not mention any prerequisites, soft-delete alternatives, or compare to other deletion tools like cache_delete or compact_recover. This is a significant gap given the large number of sibling tools.

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