iaas_delete_deployment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation and the HTTP path — no statement about what is destroyed (all deployment resources), irreversibility, or the consequences of a best-effort force delete that may orphan infrastructure.

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 say the identical thing ("Delete a deployment" twice) and the third is just the raw endpoint. No sentence adds information beyond the tool name; the space could have been used for sibling routing.

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 3-parameter tool, annotations and the fully documented schema cover the mechanics, and there is no output schema to explain. What remains missing is the one thing description must supply: disambiguation from the near-identical deployment_delete_deployment sibling.

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%, including a detailed forceDelete explanation, so the description is not required to carry parameter meaning. It nevertheless mentions no parameters at all, leaving the baseline 3 appropriate rather than a higher score.

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 deployment") plus the underlying REST endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to separate it from the sibling deployment_delete_deployment (and onboarding_delete_deployment_by_id), which by name appear to delete the same resource through a different API surface.

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 IaaS-scoped delete versus the deployment_* sibling, no prerequisites or permission notes, and no mention of when forceDelete is appropriate. The agent must infer everything about selection from the tool name alone.

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