Delete machine pool

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by spelling out exactly what is destroyed (pooled machines), what is revoked (machine grants, project machine-pool grants), and what side effect follows (processes stopped). It also discloses the specific failure condition (409 for cluster-managed pools), which annotations 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?

The core effect is front-loaded in the opening clause and every clause carries distinct information (scope, grant revocation, process stopping, error case). The single long sentence with an internal semicolon is information-dense but slightly harder to scan than a split structure would be.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs before invoking: what is removed, the cascading revocations, the process impact, and the one rejection case. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% for both orgID and poolID, including regex patterns and format hints, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional per-parameter syntax or constraint detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (Deletes) and resource (the machine pool) and then enumerates the exact cascade: pooled machines, generated machine grants, project machine-pool grants, and dependent processes. It is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling delete tools (machines_delete, grant_pools_delete, crons_delete) because it states its own blast radius.

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 precondition/refusal case — a cluster-managed pool returns 409 Conflict — plus the reassurance that no other dependency blockers exist. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g., pools_update to detach a cluster-managed pool first), so it stops short of the when-not-and-alternative guidance a 5 would require.

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