delete_instance

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 discloses destructive behavior ('permanently delete', 'deprovisions Kubernetes workload', 'removes all data', 'irreversible'). This adequately informs the agent about the tool's irreversible side effects and scope of impact.

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 with two sentences. The first states purpose, the second elaborates consequences. No unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, behavior, and key consequence (irreversibility). It does not specify return behavior (e.g., success message) but that is minor. It is largely complete for this tool.

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, confirm). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The word 'irreversible' implicitly justifies the confirm parameter, but no direct semantic enrichment is provided.

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 action: 'Permanently delete a cache instance'. It specifies the resource (cache instance) and verbs (delete, deprovision, remove). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cache_delete' (which deletes a cache key) and 'create_instance' by emphasizing irreversibility and full deprovisioning.

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 implies when to use (when permanent deletion of a cache instance is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'cache_delete' or warn about data loss impact. While context signals provide sibling names, the description lacks direct guidance.

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