cmdb_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (delete) without mentioning side effects, idempotency, error handling, or authorization requirements. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavioral impact.

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 very concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and scope. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information, but it avoids redundancy and is easy to parse.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a delete operation, additional context such as idempotency or error behavior would be helpful. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (resource_path and vdom). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool deletes a CMDB configuration object, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cmdb_create, cmdb_get, etc., by explicitly naming the delete operation and mapping to the DELETE HTTP method.

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 implies the tool is for CMDB objects via the resource_path parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other delete tools (e.g., firewall_address_delete) or provide alternative methods. The guideline is implied by the naming convention but not articulated.

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