alternative_distribution_keys_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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether deletion is permanent, whether dependent resources (e.g., domains, apps referencing the key) are affected, what permissions are required, or what the response is. For a destructive operation this is a serious gap.

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?

It is short, but it is not efficient: the parenthetical duplicates the endpoint verbatim, so half the text is pure repetition. There is no front-loaded statement of intent, just a raw route.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the effect and risk of deletion. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to judge consequences before invoking it.

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?

There is a single required parameter whose schema description coverage is 100% ("the id of the requested resource"), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the path template, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 only restates the tool name as a raw HTTP endpoint ("DELETE /v1/alternativeDistributionKeys/{id}") with no added explanation of what an alternative distribution key is or what deleting one accomplishes. A verb and resource are technically present, but this is essentially a tautology of the name and path rather than a statement of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as alternative_distribution_keys_get_instance or the update/collection variants in the sibling list. The agent must infer everything from the endpoint string.

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