delete_interface

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the qualitative warning 'irreversible' and clarifies that 'delete' means 'unassign', providing context beyond the structured metadata.

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 long, front-loads the action and object, and includes a targeted warning. There is absolutely no filler or redundant content.

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?

Given the schema documents confirm, dry_run, and apply_immediately, and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential behavioral semantics (irreversible, unassign). It could mention the apply workflow or the confirm requirement, but these are already fully documented 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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, including the confirm safety gate and apply_immediately. The description only references interface_id ('by ID') and adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the verb 'Delete (unassign)' and the resource 'interface', specifying deletion by ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_alias and update_interface by clearly identifying the object and action.

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 through its imperative verb, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_interface or other unassign methods. The warning about irreversibility implies caution but provides no alternative comparisons.

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