delete_rdsh_farm

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond them — that the operation is irreversible, that every server in the farm is removed, and that active user sessions are terminated. It omits permission requirements, but the destruction semantics are well disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences: the effect first, then the caution. The destructive consequence and the confirmation requirement are front-loaded with zero 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?

For a destructive tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage, and complete parameter documentation, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is destroyed, that it cannot be undone, and that user confirmation is mandatory.

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 100% and both parameters (farm_id, confirm) are documented in the schema, including the HORIZON_CONFIRMATION/elicitation nuance. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Delete) and resource (RDS farm) and scopes it further with 'and all of its servers'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools (update_rdsh_farm, rdsh_farm_action) and from delete_desktop_pool/delete_application_pool.

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 explicit usage guidance ('Always confirm with the user before calling this') and points, via the schema, at the read-first workflow (get_rdsh_farm, list_sessions). It does not explicitly contrast with alternative farm-management siblings, so it stops short of the top score.

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