opn_haproxy_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the deletion is permanent, requires dependency checks, and changes are not applied immediately until reconfigure. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It opens with the main action, then clearly presents dependency warnings, resource types, a reconfigure note, and return value. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (dependencies, deferred application), the description covers the essential context: resource types, deletion order, and reconfigure requirement. It lacks information about error responses or what happens if the resource doesn't exist, but the output schema and basic return dict are mentioned. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds value by enumerating valid resource types (frontends, backends, servers, etc.). However, the uuid parameter is not described beyond being a UUID. The list of resource types helps understand the 'resource_type' parameter, but it is not explicitly linked as a parameter value list.

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 clearly states the action: 'Delete a HAProxy resource by UUID.' It specifies the resource type (HAProxy) and identifier (UUID), and lists the specific resource types that can be deleted. This distinguishes it from other delete tools in the sibling list.

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 provides critical usage guidelines, including dependency order (e.g., delete servers before backends) and the need to call opn_reconfigure_haproxy to apply changes. It does not explicitly compare to alternative tools (e.g., opn_haproxy_update), but the context is clear enough for the agent to use it appropriately.

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