delete_terraform_state

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new operational context: availability gated by Semaphore edition, license, and permissions, and that some Community routes return 404 or empty lists. That tells the agent how to interpret a failed delete rather than assuming the state was absent.

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?

Two compact sentences: the action is front-loaded, and the caveat follows. The endpoint echo is mildly redundant but cheap and useful for disambiguation. No filler.

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?

For a 3-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how it is scoped, and the main failure mode. It stops short of stating irreversibility or success/error semantics explicitly, but annotations carry the destructive profile.

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 description coverage is 0% and all three params are bare integers in the schema. The description partially compensates by presenting the REST path, which maps project_id, inventory_id, and state_id to their roles in the resource hierarchy. It adds no further format or constraint detail, so it lands at the baseline-plus level for a low-coverage 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?

States a specific verb plus resource ("delete terraform state"), which is unambiguous against siblings like get_terraform_state, list_terraform_states, or delete_terraform_alias. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate, which is the only thing keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 implies a single obvious use (remove an existing state) and warns that availability depends on edition, license, and permissions, so an agent knows failures may be environmental. It gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites beyond that caveat.

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