iaas_delete_compute_gateway

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the endpoint path — no note on irreversibility, forceDelete side effects on cloud/VMware Aria Automation consistency, or async completion behavior.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first two lines are near-duplicates ('Delete a compute gateway' / 'Delete compute gateway with a given id') and the third is just the route, so a third of the text is redundant rather than informative.

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 single-id delete with full annotation and schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives just enough to invoke it correctly. It is missing the one thing structured fields cannot convey well: what deletion actually destroys and the risk of forceDelete, which matters for a destructive operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are documented structurally and the baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing to parameter meaning, which is a real loss here because the schema's apiVersion/forceDelete descriptions are swapped and a clarifying sentence would have resolved that ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource (delete a compute gateway by id) and even names the HTTP route, so an agent can distinguish it from iaas_get_compute_gateway and iaas_create_compute_gateway. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the get/list variants, no prerequisite (e.g., gateway must be detached or unreferenced before deletion), and no warning about consequences. The three lines only restate the operation and its endpoint.

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