Dpanel Compose Destroy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does flag the operation as destructive and mandates confirm=true. But it omits two of the most dangerous switches present in the schema (delete_image, delete_volume), so an agent cannot learn the full destructive surface from the description.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive warning and the required confirm flag, followed by the flag semantics. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core confirm/delete_data/delete_path semantics are covered. Still, for a maximally destructive tool the unexplained delete_image and delete_volume flags leave an agent without enough information to call it safely.

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%, so the description must document all 6 parameters; it only explains confirm, delete_data, and delete_path. delete_image, delete_volume (both destructive) and the id parameter are left unexplained, so half the parameter semantics are missing.

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 (销毁/destroy) and resource (compose 项目) and immediately tags it as destructive, which cleanly separates it from siblings like dpanel_compose_create, dpanel_compose_deploy, and dpanel_compose_container_ctrl. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a hard precondition (confirm=true) and explains the effect of two flags, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as stopping containers via dpanel_compose_container_ctrl, or that the project must exist first, so routing guidance is only partial.

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