decommission_host

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the dry_run default, what gets deleted (IPAM host, DNS records, IP addresses), and the return value (list of resources deleted). It also includes an explicit warning about setting dry_run=False, which is critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose, followed by usage direction, an important warning, parameter docs, return info, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the examples clarify edge cases without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description still provides complete context: it defines all parameters, explains return values, includes multiple examples, and notes the dry_run safety mechanism. It leaves no ambiguity about how to invoke the tool for either dry-run or actual decommission.

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 input schema only lists 'identifier' and 'dry_run' with types, but the description adds meaning: identifier can be a hostname, FQDN, or IP address, and dry_run defaults to True with clear semantics. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by defining each parameter's purpose and acceptable values.

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 opens with a clear action: 'Decommission a host: removes IPAM host, DNS records, and releases IP addresses.' This states the specific verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives for partial cleanup (manage_dns_record, manage_ip_reservation).

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'USE THIS to fully remove a host. For partial cleanup use manage_dns_record() or manage_ip_reservation().' It also clearly explains the dry_run default behavior and how to execute the actual decommission, giving an agent clear decision criteria.

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