Delete rule pack

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact beyond annotations: deletion is not cascading and leaves the pack's previously added rules in place. It stops short of noting permissions or what happens if the pack id does not exist, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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?

Two short sentences, zero padding, with the core action front-loaded and the important non-cascade caveat second. Every sentence earns its place and directly changes agent behavior.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing an agent could not infer: that rules added by the pack survive the delete. Missing only minor edges (invalid id, permission requirements), which is a small gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Only one parameter (id), and schema description coverage is 100% ("Rule pack id."). The description adds no format, source, or lookup hints beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a rule pack from the engine") and immediately differentiates itself from the individual delete_* tools (delete_chaos_rule, delete_mock_rule, delete_rewrite_rule) that live in the same sibling set. An agent can tell what this operates on and what it does not cover without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (the individual delete_* tools in the mutate tier) and the condition that selects it: uninstalling rules the pack already added. There is also an implicit contrast with install_rule_pack/import_rule_pack/export_rule_pack from the sibling list. Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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