ncloud_gtm_delete_policy_health_check

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting the 'Destructive' nature and the confirmation requirement ('Set confirm=true to execute'). This is valuable for an agent to understand the safety mechanism. However, it does not describe idempotency or what happens if health check doesn't exist, which would have increased clarity.

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, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides an essential usage instruction. It is front-loaded with a warning icon and 'Destructive'. Every word is necessary and adds value.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of annotations that cover destructive and idempotent hints, the description is complete. It explains the operation, the required confirmation flag, and the impact. No output schema exists, but that is acceptable for a delete operation. The description adequately equips an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the confirm parameter ('Set confirm=true to execute'), reinforcing the schema's description, but does not add new meaning for either parameter. No additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specifies 'Delete health check configuration for a GTM policy', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ncloud_gtm_update_policy_health_check by using 'Delete' instead of 'Update'. The action and target are 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (to delete health check config) and provides a key usage instruction: 'Set confirm=true to execute'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the safety confirmation is a clear guideline. The context of sibling tools implies that an update alternative exists, but it's not directly referenced.

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