yougpu_delete_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states that the action is permanent and stops GPU billing, adding important context beyond the tool name. It does not mention other potential effects (e.g., resource cleanup) but covers the most critical destructive aspect.

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, information-dense sentence. It includes the action, permanence, billing impact, and even the underlying HTTP endpoint, all without redundancy. Every word contributes value.

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 essential behavioral aspects: permanent deletion and billing stop. It lacks an explicit note about irreversibility (though 'permanently' implies it) and return value, but these are minor gaps. The tool's simplicity and the endpoint reference make this adequate.

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 sole parameter instance_id has no description in schema, and the tool description does not explicitly define it. However, given the tool name 'delete_instance' and the parameter name, its meaning is self-evident. The description adds no new semantic detail, but the parameter is trivially clear, making this adequate.

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 specifies a distinct action: terminate/delete instance permanently and stop GPU billing. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like stop_instance and start_instance, which suggest temporary state changes, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 this tool by emphasizing permanence and billing implications, contrasting with stop/start. While it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or say 'use this instead of stop when...', the context is clear enough for an agent to infer that this is for permanent termination rather than temporary pausing.

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