delete_rdsh_farm

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses irreversibility, deletion of all servers in the farm, and termination of active user sessions — the key destructive effects an agent must know before invocation.

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, high-value sentences: the operation, the consequence, and the mandatory confirmation guard. No filler or redundant wording; critical safety information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently captures purpose, consequences, and the safety protocol. It could additionally mention authorization requirements or expected failure behavior, but those are not necessary for correct invocation given the schema's confirm guidance.

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%, so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The description itself says nothing about farm_id or confirm, but the input schema already documents the confirm requirement and farm_id source. This meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an RDS farm and all of its servers.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_desktop_pool, list_rdsh_farms, or rdsh_farm_action by naming the exact object and scope.

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 clear context for safe use by warning that the operation is irreversible and requiring user confirmation before calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the destructive purpose and caution are strong enough for an agent to identify the correct branch.

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