deployment_delete_resource

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description still adds real context: this fires a Day 2 operation and attempts deletion at the Cloud Provider, hinting at external propagation and possible partial failure. It does not disclose whether the call is asynchronous or returns a request handle, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the action and consequence front-loaded, no filler. The trailing raw route restates the annotation title verbatim, which is mild redundancy but harmless orientation.

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, open-world operation with no output schema, the description leaves out what a successful call returns (request ID vs. synchronous result) and what happens to dependent resources or on cloud-provider failure. Annotations cover the safety profile, but an agent still lacks the response model.

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% and both parameters (deploymentId, resourceId, both UUID path params) are documented in the schema. The description adds no further semantics such as whether resourceId must belong to that deployment or what happens on mismatch, 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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete a resource scoped to a deployment) and clarifies it is not the whole deployment, distinguishing it implicitly from deployment_delete_deployment and deployment_create_resource. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus deployment_delete_deployment, deployment_submit_resource_action_request, or the iaas_* delete tools, and no prerequisites (approvals, project rights, resource state) are given. Usage is only inferable from the verb itself.

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