k8s_delete_kubernetes_cluster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool deletes a cluster and returns a status message, but it does not mention that deletion is irreversible, whether it cascades to node pools or other resources, or any permission requirements. The 'Smart identifier resolution' line is helpful but not about behavior. The description lacks the depth expected for a destructive operation, leaving the agent without critical side-effect information.

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, with a clear structure: a one-line summary, a 'Smart identifier resolution' note, an Args section, and a Returns section. It does not waste words and is easy to scan. The only minor inefficiency is the duplication of 'cluster label or ID' in both the header and the Args section, but that is acceptable for clarity. The organization aids comprehension, so it earns a 4.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation (delete a cluster by identifier), the description covers the essential input and return type. However, it omits important contextual details: it does not clarify whether this is the same as the sibling tool that deletes with resources, nor does it mention any prerequisites or consequences (e.g., the cluster must exist, or that deletion is permanent). An output schema exists but is not described, and the description does not explain what the status message contains. For a delete operation, more cautionary guidance would be expected, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does: 'cluster_identifier: The cluster label or ID to delete' clarifies that the identifier can be a label or UUID. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema type. The description also mentions a 'ctx' parameter in Args, though it is not in the schema, which is a minor inconsistency but still informative. Overall, the description adequately explains the parameter semantics, earning a strong score.

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 action: 'Delete a Kubernetes cluster.' It specifies the resource and adds a useful detail about identifier resolution (label or UUID). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool k8s_delete_kubernetes_cluster_with_resources, which likely has a different scope. The verb+resource is unambiguous, but the lack of sibling differentiation prevents a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly the sibling k8s_delete_kubernetes_cluster_with_resources. It does not mention conditions like 'use this for plain deletion' or 'use the other for deletion including resources.' The only context is the identifier resolution hint, which is about parameters rather than usage. With no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, this dimension scores low.

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