haops_delete_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals cascade deletion behavior but omits critical details such as irreversibility, required permissions, side effects on associated data, and whether the operation can be undone. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with two clauses. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then provides the critical conditional behavior. No superfluous 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?

With no output schema, the description should cover what the tool returns or what happens after deletion. It does not mention response format, success indicators, or error conditions. The description adequately covers the core purpose and a key behavioral condition, but leaves the agent uninformed about the outcome.

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 100% coverage of parameters. The description adds meaningful context to the 'confirm' parameter by explaining its role in cascade deletion. This goes beyond the schema description, which only says 'Set to true to confirm cascade deletion...' The other parameters (projectSlug, moduleId, verbose) are not further clarified, but the schema already adequately describes them.

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 action (delete a module) and the resource (HAOps project module). It is distinct from other delete tools by specifying the entity type, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools like haops_delete_feature or haops_delete_issue.

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 provides a key conditional usage guideline: requires confirm=true if module has child features for cascade deletion. However, it does not give guidance on when to avoid using this tool (e.g., if intending to archive rather than delete) or suggest alternatives.

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