k8s_delete_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify critical details like whether deletion is permanent, what happens to dependent resources, confirmation requirements, or error handling. The description mentions 'force' parameter only indirectly through the schema, but doesn't explain its behavioral implications.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential action ('Delete') without any wasted words. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like what 'force' deletion means, whether namespaces are required for cluster-scoped resources, what confirmation or safety checks exist, or what the response format looks like. Given the high-stakes nature of deletion in Kubernetes, more guidance is needed.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify parameter relationships, provide examples, or explain edge cases. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and target ('a resource by type and name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling deletion tools like k8s_delete_configmap or k8s_delete_pod, but the generic nature is appropriate for a tool that handles multiple resource types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling deletion tools (e.g., k8s_delete_pod, k8s_delete_configmap). It also doesn't mention prerequisites like required permissions, context, or namespace considerations, leaving the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.

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