delete_haproxy_backend

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, and the description adds the crucial context that the deletion is 'irreversible.' This goes beyond the structured hint and is valuable for an agent deciding whether to proceed. It does not contradict annotations and provides additional risk information.

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 two sentences: the first states the action, the second delivers a warning. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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 delete operation, the description covers the core purpose and warns of irreversibility. With detailed schema parameter descriptions and an output schema present, it does not need to explain return values. It could mention the confirm flag, but that is already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 100% with each parameter having a meaningful description. The tool description adds little beyond confirming backend_id is the target. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an HAProxy backend by ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_haproxy_frontend or search_haproxy_backends. It also specifies the identifier mechanism, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage when you need to remove a specific HAProxy backend, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites beyond the ID. The irreversibility warning serves as a caution but not a full usage guideline.

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