prepare_cluster_destroy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive outcome ('this will delete the entire cluster!') and states that the tool returns a 'Destroy command and information.' However, it does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or whether the command is actually executed or just returned. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear warning up front, followed by parameter docs and return info. Every sentence contributes value, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are minimal.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return format is likely covered. The description warns about destruction and lists parameters, but lacks prerequisites, what 'information' means, and any subtle behavioral details. It is minimally complete but leaves some gaps for a destructive tool.

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 so by explaining both parameters: 'install_dir: Installation directory' and 'installer_path: Path to openshift-install binary (default: 'openshift-install').' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could include more detail on constraints or formats.

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's function: 'Prepare cluster destroy command' and 'This tool provides the command to destroy the cluster.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and no sibling tool handles cluster destruction, so it is well differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied through the name and description ('destroy the cluster'), and there is a strong warning ('Use with caution - this will delete the entire cluster!'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use or alternative guidance. The tool stands alone among siblings, so some context is present.

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