delete_tkc_cluster

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

The description discloses critical behaviors beyond annotations: dry run default, confirmed/dry_run interplay, irreversible nature, force parameter dangers, and the refusal when workloads run. Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds vital safety context without contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with a summary first, return value, safety block, and Args list. Every sentence carries operational meaning; no filler or redundancy. The [WRITE] prefix is a useful upfront signal.

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?

Covers the full operational picture: purpose, return value, safety prerequisites, alternative tool suggestions, and all 6 parameter semantics. Given the complexity of a destructive action with multiple safeguards, this description leaves no critical gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter in Args, including name sourcing via list_tkc_clusters, namespace meaning, confirmed requirement, dry_run semantics, force danger, and target default. This exceeds schema value.

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 opens with 'Delete a TKC cluster and all of its nodes,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scale_tkc_cluster and delete_namespace. It goes further by explicitly referencing alternatives, eliminating any ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use scale_tkc_cluster for fewer nodes, empty a namespace before delete_namespace, and notes the safety condition requiring force=True to bypass running workloads. This is exceptional contextual direction.

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