destroy_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is permanent and irreversible, and includes the HTTP DELETE method, providing essential safety-critical information. It does not mention potential side effects on associated resources beyond 'all its data', but the key destructive behavior is transparent.

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 plus a code example. It front-loads the purpose and warning with zero redundancy. 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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the core action, irreversibility, and usage example. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. It could be more complete by noting whether the instance must be stopped first, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

The schema documents one required integer parameter, instance_id. The description adds a usage example (destroy_instance(instance_id=12345)) which demonstrates the parameter format, but does not explicitly explain its semantics. With 0% schema coverage, the description provides only minimal compensation beyond the self-explanatory parameter name.

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 'Permanently destroy an instance and all its data', using the specific verb 'destroy' and resource 'instance'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_instance or get_instance, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 the tool (when you want to permanently delete an instance) and adds a strong warning ('Irreversible. Call carefully.') but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state any exclusions, such as needing to stop the instance first. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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