pbs_acme_plugin_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a mutation (MUTATION), dry-run by default, confirm=True executes synchronously and returns a specific JSON response, and the dry-run plan captures current config. It also highlights the high risk and lack of undo, providing critical context for safe invocation.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the action and risk. Every sentence adds value: mutation type, dry-run default, high-risk consequences, no undo, return format, and config requirement. No wasted words.

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 complexity (high-risk mutation), the description is thorough. It covers behavior, risk, dry-run, execution mode, output format, and configuration. It lacks explicit mention of required permissions, but the overall completeness is high enough for an agent to use this tool safely.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dry-run behavior linked to the confirm parameter and the identifier role of plugin_id. It does not elaborate on proximo_target, but the schema description covers it. Overall, the description enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'MUTATION: delete an ACME DNS challenge plugin.' This clearly identifies the verb (delete) and resource (ACME DNS challenge plugin), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, update, get, and list.

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?

The description explains when to use the tool (to delete a plugin) and provides explicit warnings: high risk of breaking cert auto-renewal, no undo, and the need to use pbs_acme_plugin_create with credentials re-supply to recreate. It also mentions the dry-run default behavior, guiding the agent on safe usage.

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