delete_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It warns that deletion will fail if the service is in use by policies, a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that deletion is irreversible or any authentication requirements.

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 well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, a warning, a list of arguments, and a return value specification. Every sentence provides value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 deletion tool with 2 parameters and an output schema (implied by the return section), the description covers the key warning and return structure. It is mostly complete, though it could benefit from mentioning permanence of the deletion.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description lists the parameters 'adom: ADOM name' and 'name: Service name to delete', adding basic clarification beyond the bare property names. This is helpful but minimal, only partially compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Delete a service object,' which uses a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_address, delete_device, etc.

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 includes a warning about failure if the service is in use by policies, which provides some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like delete_service_group, nor does it offer guidance on prerequisites or conditions for successful use.

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