ncloud_functions_delete_package

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly using the '⚠️ Destructive' warning, confirming the permanence of the delete. It also discloses the specific error state (409 PACKAGE_NOT_EMPTY) and the required 'confirm=true' behavior, which directly affects how the agent must invoke the operation. IdempotentHint is not elaborated, but the description is consistent and adds operational context not present in the annotations.

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-loads the most important warning ('Destructive'). It conveys purpose, a failure condition, a prerequisite, and a required parameter in three sentences with no waste. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, the description covers the essential context: permanence, the pre-existing condition that must be resolved, the error code, and the confirm flag. There is no output schema, but the failure mode is disclosed. A brief mention of what the successful response looks like might improve completeness, but the current description is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 schema already covers all parameters, but the description adds key semantic context for 'confirm' (must be true to execute) and the platform nuance ('Singapore/Japan regions support vpc only') is in the schema. The description emphasizes the critical confirm flag, which is the most actionable semantic detail beyond a bare schema description.

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 explicitly names the verb 'delete' and the resource 'Cloud Functions package', and uses the warning 'Destructive' to make the operation's purpose immediately clear. It also includes the specific failure condition (409 PACKAGE_NOT_EMPTY), which ties directly to the expected behavior of deleting a package. This distinguishes it from related package operations like create or get and from other delete tools.

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 states a clear precondition: fail while the package still contains actions, so delete those first. This tells an agent when to use this tool and what to do before calling it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives by name, but the focused package context and the stated failure condition make the usage scenario obvious.

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