balena_delete_fleet

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by stating the destruction is permanent and by warning to 'Review its devices before confirming.' It does not detail what happens to the devices themselves, but it provides sufficient caution for a destructive operation.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the safety instruction earns its place by guiding correct invocation. Every word contributes to either identifying the operation or preventing misuse.

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 simple destructive operation with two required parameters and no output schema, the description together with the annotations and schema is largely sufficient. It could have stated what happens to the fleet's devices or mentioned irreversibility more explicitly, but it already flags the key risk and confirmation requirement.

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%: the confirm parameter is described, but fleet_id is not. The description reinforces the confirm parameter's intent by linking it to reviewing devices, which adds slight value. However, it does not compensate for the undocumented fleet_id, though that parameter is largely self-explanatory from its name and type.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a fleet.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like balena_delete_device, balena_delete_team, and balena_delete_variable. The qualifier 'permanently' adds important semantic weight to exactly what this operation does.

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 establishes clear context for use: this is the tool for permanently removing a fleet, and it explicitly instructs the agent to review the fleet's devices before confirming. It does not name alternatives, but the resource-specific action and the precondition make the usage context clear enough.

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