Destroy it now

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it stops billing, deletes the disk, verifies deletion, and returns a structured result. There is no contradiction with the 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 compact and front-loaded: action, consequences, and return format. The return JSON sentence is somewhat redundant with the output schema, but it is still brief and adds the useful next_tool field.

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?

Core destructive context is covered well, including billing, disk deletion, prerequisite downloads, and verification. However, it omits any explanation of the required instance_id parameter and does not situate this tool against destroy_all or extend_teardown.

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 carries full responsibility for explaining parameters, but it never mentions instance_id or reason. An agent cannot tell what each parameter means or how required instance_id should be selected.

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 specific action: destroying an instance immediately, stopping billing, and verifying deletion. The singular 'the instance' helps differentiate from the sibling destroy_all, even though that alternative is not named.

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 implies the tool is for immediate destruction and includes a key prerequisite: 'make sure the renders have been downloaded first.' However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as extend_teardown or destroy_all.

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