Delete machine pool

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

Despite annotations already flagging destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description adds real value: it enumerates the destroyed entities (pooled machines, generated machine grants, project machine-pool grants), the stopped processes, and the one failure mode (409 on cluster-managed pools). This is behavior detail beyond what annotations carry.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary destructive effect followed by the edge case, with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it fully covers the side effects and the one blocker for a destructive tool. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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% and the description says nothing about orgID or poolID, their expected format, or scoping. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory.

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 ('machine pool') and names the cascading scope (pooled machines, grants, processes). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pools_update, pools_list, and pools_get.

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 an explicit precondition for failure: cluster-managed pools are rejected with 409 Conflict, and it asserts there are no other dependency blockers. It does not name an alternative tool or spell out when to prefer another operation, but the constraint context is clear.

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