pbs_notification_endpoint_delete

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is a destructive mutation, dry-run returns current config with secrets masked, confirm=True performs synchronous deletion returning a specific response, and there is no undo. The side effect on matchers is disclosed. All critical aspects are described.

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 efficiently conveys all necessary information. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and key details. While it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating steps), it remains clear and concise without 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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits exhaustive return value details. It covers the mutation nature, dry-run/confirm behavior, side effects on matchers, configuration requirements, and the synchronous response format. No gaps are apparent for the tool's complexity.

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 effect (dry-run vs execution), listing ep_type enum values explicitly, and clarifying the outcome of deletion (no undo, matcher failure). This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description explicitly states 'MUTATION: delete a PBS notification endpoint' with the specific resource and action. It lists valid ep_type values (gotify|sendmail|smtp|webhook), making the tool's scope clear. The name distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, list, and update.

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?

Provides clear context: dry-run by default, confirm=True executes deletion, and notes that matchers referencing this endpoint silently fail. Also mentions the need for PROXIMO_PBS_* config. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives but the usage intent is clear.

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