Delete system restore

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 explicitly flags the operation as 'Destructive' and reinforces the risk with a strict authorization prerequisite, plus a documentation link for context. It does not discuss reversibility or cascade effects on related resources, but the central destructive trait is clearly disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences plus a documentation link, with purpose front-loaded and the destructive warning placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 one-parameter destructive delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: what is deleted, that it is destructive, when it may be called, and where to find reference documentation. The main gaps are the undocumented 'name' parameter and the lack of routing to related list/get tools, but the critical safety context is complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly describe the 'name' parameter, but the main clause implies that 'name' identifies the system restore record to delete, which gives the bare string type some semantic grounding. The compensation is partial rather than explicit, hence a 3.

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 and resource: 'Delete a Longhorn system restore record.' This precisely identifies the operation and entity, and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like systemrestore_create, systemrestore_list, and systembackup_delete. Adding 'Longhorn' and 'record' removes ambiguity present in the bare title 'Delete system restore.'

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?

Provides an explicit gate for use: 'Do not call this unless the user has explicitly authorized it in this conversation.' It also excludes proactive, speculative, and side-effect invocation. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., systemrestore_list to find records first), so it falls just short of full when/when-not/alternative routing.

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