Delete machine

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

Annotations only declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=false; the description goes well beyond that by itemising exactly what is destroyed (runtimes, in-flight work, daemon tokens, project grants, agent bindings) and confirming no dependency blockers exist. That is precisely the behavioural context an agent needs before issuing an irreversible delete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive scope and followed by the exclusion and the reassurance. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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, no-output-schema tool the description covers the blast radius and the eligibility constraint thoroughly. The only meaningful gap is operational: it doesn't state required permissions or whether the deletion is immediate versus soft, which matters for a high-impact call.

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% with two required parameters, so the description carries the burden — but it never names machineID or orgID, gives no format/pattern context (mch_..., org_...), and does not explain whether orgID is just a scope or has additional semantics. The mention of 'machine pool' hints at an alternative identifier path but is not tied to any parameter.

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 (deletes) and resource (BYO machine) and then enumerates the full cascade: daemon runtimes and work, daemon tokens, project grants, agent bindings. It also explicitly rules out a neighbouring resource class (pooled machines), so an agent can separate it from pools_delete at a glance.

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 a clear when-not condition ('Pooled machines are managed through their machine pool and cannot be deleted through this route') and removes a common pre-flight worry by stating there are no dependency blockers for a BYO machine. It stops short of naming the sibling tool an agent should call instead for pooled machines.

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