delete_deployment

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: the operation is asynchronous, returns status 'deprovisioning', and errors with already_deprovisioned. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: purpose, usage sequencing, and behavioral result. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter destructive async operation, the description covers purpose, sequencing, return status, and a key failure mode. It could mention how to observe completion or handle a missing deployment, but the annotation set and simple schema make this adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the deployment_id parameter. It only says 'by id' and echoes deployment_id without explaining the ID format, where to obtain it, or prerequisites such as the deployment existing. The parameter name and schema carry most of the meaning.

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: 'Request deprovisioning for one deployment by id.' It also distinguishes itself from create_deployment by explaining the lifecycle relationship, so an agent can tell which operation to select.

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?

Gives explicit context: use before create_deployment when a deployment already exists, and warns that already-deprovisioned deployments fail. It does not name an alternative like get_deployment for checking status, so it stops just short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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