k8s_delete_kubernetes_cluster_with_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive scope via 'delete...all related resources', but does not warn about irreversibility, what happens to the related resources (deleted vs. detached), or any permission requirements. The destructive nature is clear, but the extent and consequences are under-specified.

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 compact and logically ordered (purpose, identifier resolution, args, returns). The only wrinkle is that it lists 'ctx' as an arg even though the input schema only defines cluster_identifier, which could mildly confuse an agent about the actual callable signature.

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?

The output schema covers the return value, so that's handled. The description is adequate for the single real parameter, but it leaves ambiguity about what 'all related resources' means and does not explicitly distinguish when to prefer this over k8s_delete_kubernetes_cluster, which is important given the closely related sibling. For a destructive tool with no annotations, a clearer scope statement would help.

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, and it does: 'Smart identifier resolution: use cluster label or UUID' and 'cluster label or ID to delete' add real meaning about the accepted format of cluster_identifier, going well beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 clear verb+resource ('Delete a Kubernetes cluster') plus the differentiator 'all related resources', which sets it apart from the sibling k8s_delete_kubernetes_cluster and the node/node-pool delete tools. It's specific enough for an agent to grasp intent, though it doesn't name the exact sibling it complements.

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 phrase 'all related resources' implies a distinct use case (cluster plus its resources vs. just the cluster via k8s_delete_kubernetes_cluster), but this is implied rather than explicit. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no exclusions are stated.

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