Delete Zone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the deletion is scoped to the workspace and production is unaffected until a new version is published. This is non-obvious and highly valuable. It doesn't cover reversibility or error handling, but the key side effect is well 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?

The description is three short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical behavioral nuance is presented immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 delete operation with four required parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (workspace-only effect). It doesn't mention prerequisites or error conditions, but those are likely covered by the schema and output schema. It is adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter (e.g., 'Numeric zone ID'). The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 a specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('zone'), and scope ('from a workspace'). It clearly differentiates from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_workspace, delete_container) by naming the resource and scoping it to the workspace. The phrase 'Delete a zone from a workspace' is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: when you want to delete a zone from a workspace. It further clarifies that the deletion does not affect production until a version is published, which is essential for decision-making. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like revert_zone or contrast with update_zone, so it falls short of a 5.

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