delete_vpc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the delete action but fails to mention side effects (e.g., deletion of associated subnets/ACGs), dependencies, or state requirements, leaving the agent unaware of critical safety aspects.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the essential information. It is appropriately concise with no redundant or wasteful wording.

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 operation like deleting a VPC, the description is overly minimal. It does not mention what happens to dependent resources (subnets, ACGs, load balancers), whether the VPC must be empty, or return/error behaviors. This incompleteness is risky for safe tool invocation.

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 input schema already provides complete coverage for the single parameter (vpcNo with description 'VPC 번호'), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'VPC를 삭제합니다' (deletes the VPC), clearly specifying both the action (delete) and resource (VPC). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_vpc, list_vpcs, and delete_subnet.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., VPC must be empty), and no caution about irreversibility. It simply states the function without any contextual instructions.

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