vpc_delete_vpc2

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. The description states it returns 'Success confirmation' but doesn't disclose destructive consequences, whether the operation is reversible, whether associated resources are also deleted, or whether there are any safety checks. For a delete 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 structure is clear and scannable. Minor redundancy: 'VPC 2.0 description or ID' appears in both the description and the Args section, but this is not a significant issue.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema details beyond 'Success confirmation', the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention what happens to attached resources, whether confirmation is required, or any error conditions. The sibling vpc_delete exists, suggesting a distinction that should be clarified. The description is adequate for a simple call but lacks important operational context.

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 vpc2_identifier is 'VPC 2.0 description or ID to delete', which adds meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema. However, it doesn't clarify the format of the description or ID, or how the smart resolution handles ambiguity. The description adds some value but not comprehensive parameter semantics.

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 VPC 2.0 network') and identifies the resource type. It distinguishes itself from the sibling vpc_delete (which presumably deletes VPC 1.0) by the explicit '2.0' qualifier in both the name and description. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with vpc_delete, so an agent might not fully understand the difference between the two delete tools without additional inference.

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 VPC 2.0 description or ID' which gives some guidance on how to identify the target resource. However, it doesn't state when to use this tool versus vpc_delete, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., whether the VPC must be detached from instances first). The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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