registry_delete

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 the operation is a delete (destructive) and mentions 'resource change notifications' via ctx, but it does not disclose whether deletion is irreversible, whether it cascades to associated resources, whether confirmation is required, or what happens to dependent data. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Smart identifier resolution' note is useful and placed early. The Args/Returns section is a bit redundant with the schema but adds the ctx context. No wasted sentences, though the Returns line is 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?

For a destructive delete tool with no annotations and no output schema details, the description is incomplete. It doesn't state whether deletion is reversible, what the success confirmation contains, or any side effects. The output schema exists but the description doesn't clarify what 'Success confirmation' means. Given the tool's destructive nature and the large sibling set, more context is needed.

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 explain that registry_identifier accepts 'registry name or ID', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema property. However, it doesn't provide format details, examples, or disambiguation rules (e.g., what happens if both name and ID match). The ctx parameter is mentioned but not explained in terms of when it's needed.

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 container registry subscription') and identifies the resource type. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like registry_create and registry_update by the verb 'delete', and from other delete tools (e.g., db_delete, block_storage_delete) by naming the registry resource. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with a sibling like registry_get_registry_info, though the verb makes the purpose clear.

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 mentions 'Smart identifier resolution: Use registry name or ID', which gives some guidance on how to invoke the tool. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., cannot delete a registry that has resources attached). The context is implied by the delete verb but not explicitly routed against siblings.

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