Delete a query cluster

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds value beyond them: the exact side effect on tracked queries (they leave the cluster but are not deleted), the irreversibility of the action, and the mandatory confirmation-token workflow with a user-agreement gate. That is meaningful behavioral context an annotation cannot express.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blast radius, then the irreversibility warning, then the prerequisite procedure. No filler, and the ordering matches the order in which an agent needs the information.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety-critical elements: irreversibility, side effects, and the required confirmation flow. The only gap is that the optional requestId parameter is never mentioned, which is minor but leaves one field undocumented everywhere.

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 all five parameters rest on their names alone. The description compensates for the most hazardous one by explaining what confirmationToken is and how to obtain it, but organizationId, projectId, clusterId, and especially the optional requestId are left entirely unexplained. Partial, but not full, compensation for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a query cluster'), and the second immediately disambiguates the scope from the sibling delete_tracked_queries by clarifying that tracked queries survive. An agent can distinguish it from archive_project, delete_competitor, and delete_tracked_queries without opening any 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 an explicit when-and-how: call preview_operation with tool "delete_cluster" and these arguments, show the returned plan to the user, and only then call this tool after explicit user agreement. The alternative path (preview_operation) and the gating condition are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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