delete dedicated endpoint

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

Annotations already mark it destructive and non-readonly, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: a final meter/billing step, soft-delete semantics, exclusion from lists, non-reversibility, authorization scope, and the 404 behavior for already-deleted endpoints. This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses consequences.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, covering action, billing effect, API details, permissions, error cases, and irreversibility. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers supporting details efficiently.

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, billing-affecting operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the response shape, required permissions, error behavior, side effects, and irreversibility. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand consequences.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is 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 states a specific verb ('Tears down') and resource ('dedicated endpoint'), and explains the result: billing accrued GPU-hours, freeing GPUs, marking DELETED, and stopping payments. It clearly distinguishes this from related endpoint operations like update or create.

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 explains exactly when to use this tool ('the way to permanently stop paying for an endpoint') and gives prerequisites (OWNER/ADMIN, workspace ownership). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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