ncloud_pca_delete_ca

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds crucial context: the private key will be permanently destroyed and cannot be recovered, and the confirm parameter acts as a safety guard. No contradictions with 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 ultra-concise: four short sentences, each adding essential information. No redundant or filler content. Front-loaded with warning emoji and action verb.

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?

Coverage of irreversibility, status prerequisite, and confirm parameter is good for a destructive tool. Could optionally mention success/failure indicators, but not strictly necessary given annotations and schema completeness.

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 100% and both parameters (caTag, confirm) have clear schema descriptions. The description adds the status precondition but doesn't significantly augment parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'delete' and resource 'Private CA', and specifies that only CAs in DESTROYING status can be deleted. This distinguishes it from sibling PCA tools like ncloud_pca_list_cas or ncloud_pca_create_ca.

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?

Explicitly states the precondition that CAs must be in DESTROYING status, and instructs to set confirm=true to execute. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives.

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