delete_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the schema: the deletion is 'Wrapped in an undo recording,' implying reversibility. It does not say what happens to descendants, whether a missing path errors or no-ops, or what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the undo caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action and reversibility but omits error behavior, cascade effects on children, and permission requirements — gaps that matter most for a delete tool.

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 coverage is 0% — the single 'path' parameter is documented only as a bare string. The phrase 'by path' adds the meaning that the path identifies the target instance, but gives no format example or scoping rules (root-relative vs absolute), so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete (Destroy) an instance by path.' It is clearly the destructive counterpart to create_instance and get_instance in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus other mutation tools, nor on prerequisites such as whether the path must resolve to an existing instance or whether the caller needs elevated permissions. The only usage-relevant hint is implicit in 'by path.'

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