Delete resource pool

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the specific effect that members remain orphaned, which is not in annotations. It also reinforces the need for user confirmation, providing behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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, consisting of two sentences that front-load the key information: purpose, effect, and critical warning. No word is wasted.

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 destructive tool with partial schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the important aspects: destruction effect, membership behavior, and confirmation requirement. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what happens and how to invoke it safely.

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 50% (only 'confirm' has a description). The tool description does not add any new information about the parameters; it does not explain 'poolid' or further clarify 'confirm'. Given the moderate coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'resource pool'. It also specifies that members are not deleted but orphaned, distinguishing it from other deletion tools. This provides a specific, complete purpose.

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 explicitly states 'DESTRUCTIVE — ask the user to confirm before invoking,' providing a clear usage guideline. While it does not list alternatives, the context of sibling tools includes create_pool and update_pool, making the when-to-use implicit. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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