Argocd Delete Resource

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the trailing word 'destructive' is redundant with structured data. However, 'so the controller recreates it' is a genuinely useful behavioral fact not captured anywhere else – the deletion is not durable under GitOps reconciliation. Nothing is said about orphan/force semantics or auth requirements, so it stays at 3.

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?

Two short sentences, core action and effect front-loaded. The standalone 'destructive.' fragment duplicates the annotation and is the one piece that doesn't quite earn its place.

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 an output schema present, a fully documented 10-parameter schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey the action and its reconciler side effect – which it does.

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%, including rich notes on project (404 vs 403) and app_namespace. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete a single managed resource) and even explains the GitOps consequence: the controller recreates it. This implicitly separates it from argocd_delete_application, though it never names a sibling explicitly, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The closest thing to guidance is the implied 'use this if you want the controller to recreate it', which is inference rather than instruction.

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