balena_delete_device

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the meaningful context that deletion is permanent rather than merely an unlink or stop operation, and it does not contradict any annotation. It does not, however, disclose potential side effects on associated data or any authorization requirements, though annotations already cover the core hazard.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence contains only essential information ('permanently', 'delete', 'device', 'Balena') without repeating the tool name or schema fields. Every word contributes to the semantic intent.

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 two-parameter destructive operation, the description plus annotations and the inline confirm description cover the main safety context: the deletion is permanent. A shortcoming is that potential consequences to associated releases or fleets are not mentioned, but the schema already makes the confirmation requirement visible. Overall it is adequate for a simple tool definition.

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 50%: confirm is fully described, but device_id has no natural-language description beyond type and numeric bounds. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning; in particular, it does not say how the device is selected or what the required confirmation means. Since coverage is not high and the description does not compensate, the parameters remain only partially explained.

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 says exactly what the tool does: 'Permanently delete a device from Balena.' It uses a specific verb/resource and the adjective 'permanently' makes the operation unambiguous. This differentiates it from the many sibling delete tools (balena_delete_fleet, balena_delete_tag) by naming 'device' as the target.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to call this tool or when to prefer an alternative such as balena_get_device or balena_find_device_by_name. The description only states the operation and does not warn about prerequisites like looking up the device first or setting confirm=true. Usage context is left entirely to inference from the name and parameters.

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