arvan_iac_terraform_destroy

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the tool tears down infrastructure and requires auto_approve. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description clarifies the explicit approval requirement.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and a critical requirement without any redundant information. Every word is necessary.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and a key parameter dependency but fails to cover the 'files' and 'directory' parameters, which are essential for specifying the target infrastructure. For a destructive tool without output schema, this is a notable gap.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description only addresses the auto_approve parameter ('needs auto_approve'), omitting any explanation of the 'files' and 'directory' parameters. This leaves significant ambiguity about their role in specifying Terraform configurations.

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 'Run terraform destroy' and 'tears down infrastructure', specifying the verb, resource, and action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like terraform_apply or terraform_plan, which create/update or plan changes respectively.

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 mentions a key requirement: 'needs auto_approve', guiding the agent to set the auto_approve parameter. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statements relative to siblings, though the purpose is strongly implied.

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