eventbridge_delete_bus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Delete' implies destructive behavior, but the description does not disclose whether associated rules/targets are removed, whether deletion is irreversible, or if any cleanup is performed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It communicates the action and resource directly.

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 delete operation with one fully documented parameter, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context about side effects (e.g., deleting associated rules) and any error conditions, which would be valuable given no output schema or annotations.

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 schema fully documents the 'name' parameter as 'Event bus name', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics about name format or constraints, but none are needed given full schema coverage.

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 'Delete' and identifies the resource 'EventBridge event bus', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/list. The LocalStack context adds specificity. It leaves no ambiguity about the 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as eventbridge_delete_rule or eventbridge_remove_targets. The usage is implied as the inverse of eventbridge_create_bus, but no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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