Delete Federation Rule

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

Goes beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing the actual side effect (workload access through the rule is revoked), the return contract ('Returns null on success'), and the authentication requirements with explicit credential exclusions. These are exactly the operational details 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?

Three tight sentences, each carrying distinct load: effect, return value, then authorization constraints. The destructive consequence is front-loaded, so an agent reading only the first clause still knows this is a destructive operation.

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 simple destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers effect, return value, and auth, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is parameter-level clarity, since three required undocumented params are never explained and error behavior for a missing rule is unstated.

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?

All three parameters (organization, cluster, id) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions any of them. It does not clarify that id is a rule UUID, whether organization/cluster are names or identifiers, or what happens if the id does not match an existing rule in that scope.

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 the rule') and adds the consequence ('revoke workload access through it'), which tells an agent exactly what operation this is. It relies on the tool name to establish that 'the rule' is a federation rule, and it does not explicitly contrast with update-federation-rule, but the verb alone separates it from the other federation siblings.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions and exclusions: organization admin, user session or OAuth with full_access, and explicitly rules out API keys and workload tokens. What's missing is guidance on alternatives — e.g., whether update-federation-rule should be preferred when the goal is only to suspend access temporarily rather than revoke it.

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