delete_allocation

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a destructive operation with potentially unknown side effects. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the 'admin action' requirement, the constraint about allocations in use, and the API key requirement. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loaded with essential information in just three sentences. Every sentence earns its place: the core action, a critical constraint, and a prerequisite tool reference. No wasted words or redundant 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?

For a destructive tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It covers the admin requirement, usage constraints, and prerequisites. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of what happens upon successful deletion or error handling, but annotations cover the destructive nature adequately.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (node_id from list_nodes, allocation_id from list_allocations). The description references list_allocations for finding allocation_id but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Delete'), resource ('a port allocation from a node'), and scope ('admin action'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_server or delete_egg. It precisely identifies what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Cannot delete allocations that are in use by a server' (when-not), 'Use list_allocations to find the allocation_id' (prerequisite), and 'Requires Application API key' (permission requirement). It clearly differentiates usage context from other deletion tools.

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