pbs_tape_pool_delete

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation nature, risk level (RISK_MEDIUM), detailed consequences (policies lost, jobs fail), dry-run behavior, synchronous execution, return format, and config requirements. Thorough and accurate.

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 compact and dense, with every sentence earning its place. It is structured with clear keywords (MUTATION, RISK_MEDIUM) and front-loaded with the primary action. 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 no annotations and a medium-complexity tool (deletion with side effects), the description is remarkably complete. It covers risk, dry-run, execution, return values, undo, and configuration needs. The output schema is described inline.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond schema: it explains that dry-run captures current config, confirms deletion API call, and returns a specific structure. It also notes the config requirement implicitly linked to the proximo_target parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: 'delete a PBS tape media pool.' It uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbs_tape_pool_create, pbs_tape_pool_get, etc.

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 (intent to delete) and provides important context: dry-run default, confirm flag required for execution, and no UNDO primitive. It references pbs_tape_pool_create as the way to undo. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool over others, but the purpose and siblings make it clear.

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