Delete service

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description still adds real value by spelling out irreversibility ('cannot be undone') and that explicit confirmation is required, which tells the agent a precondition beyond the hint flags. It stops short of saying what is destroyed (volumes, domains, deploys) or whether the delete is immediate vs queued.

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 with the use condition first and the danger warning second; no filler and nothing redundant.

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-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions (permanence, confirmation). Minor gaps remain around identifier format for project/service and what collateral resources disappear, but nothing that would cause a wrong invocation.

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 only 33%: only 'confirm' is documented in the schema, while 'project' and 'service' are bare minLength-1 strings. The description hints at the confirmation requirement but never clarifies that 'project' and 'service' are identifiers/names or how to obtain them (e.g. from service_list or service_show). Partial compensation, not full.

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 and resource: 'permanently delete a Lizard service (app or addon)'. The word 'permanently' and the explicit '(app or addon)' scope distinguish it from the many soft-state siblings like service_pause, service_resume, service_sleep_set, and service_scale.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('Use this when the user wants to permanently delete...'), which is a strong positive-selection cue. It does not explicitly name the non-destructive alternatives (service_pause / service_sleep_set), so an agent must infer that those are the right tools when the user only wants to stop a service.

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