pbs_node_network_iface_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation type, staged-only effect, dry-run behavior, execution parameters, and config dependency. This is transparent for a deletion tool, though rate limits or auth details are omitted.

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 two sentences, front-loads the mutation label and purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 5 parameters and existing output schema, the description covers the core behavior, dry-run vs execution, and reliance on a reload step. It lacks details on error handling or permissions but is sufficiently complete for a deletion tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the confirm parameter's role in executing the deletion and implying the interface parameter. It does not elaborate on digest or node semantics, but the additional context justifies a 4.

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 starts with 'remove a network interface's staged configuration on a PBS node', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like pbs_node_network_iface_create and pbs_node_network_iface_update by focusing on removal.

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 the dry-run default and the need to set confirm=True for execution, and mentions pbs_node_network_reload for applying changes. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or compare with alternative deletion methods, but the usage context is clear.

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