instance_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Delete an instance' without mentioning that deletion is irreversible, that associated resources may be affected, or that it may fail if the instance is running. The return value is vaguely described as 'Status message confirming deletion' without specifying error behavior or idempotency. The mention of 'ctx' for notifications adds little.

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 front-loaded with the core action. The args and returns sections are clearly structured, but the inclusion of 'ctx' (not in the schema) adds noise. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple delete 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 destructive tool with no annotations and an output schema that is not shown, the description lacks essential context: it does not warn about irreversible data loss, does not mention whether the instance must be stopped first, and does not explain error handling. The return value is vague, and there is no mention of idempotency or side effects on associated resources. The description is adequate for a basic delete but not fully complete for an agent to understand consequences.

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?

The description explains instance_id in detail: 'The instance ID, label, or hostname (e.g., "web-server", "db.example.com", or UUID)', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema (which has no description for this parameter). However, it also lists 'ctx' as an argument, but the schema does not include it, creating potential confusion. Since the only required parameter is well-documented, this is a strong addition despite the extra context.

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 'Delete an instance' with a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like instance_create, instance_update, and instance_delete_ipv4 because it explicitly targets the whole instance, not a component. Examples of identifiers further clarify the target resource.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it deletes the entire instance rather than an IP (sibling instance_delete_ipv4), nor does it mention any prerequisites like stopping the instance first. Usage is implied by the tool name and resource, but no explicit guidance is given.

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