delete_egg

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the action is 'permanent' and 'cannot be undone,' warns about impact on existing servers, states it 'Requires Application API key' (auth requirement), and clarifies it's an 'admin action.' This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core action and warning, followed by usage guidance and auth requirement. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose and admin context, the second warns of consequences, the third emphasizes irreversibility, the fourth gives usage tip, and the fifth specifies auth. No wasted words.

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 annotations (destructiveHint=true) but no output schema, the description provides complete context: it covers purpose, guidelines, behavioral risks (permanence, server impact), auth needs, and verification steps. This compensates for the lack of output schema by ensuring the agent understands the tool's implications fully.

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 clear descriptions for nest_id and egg_id. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage nuances). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 ('permanently delete'), resource ('an egg/server template'), and scope ('from a nest'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_egg_variable or delete_server. It explicitly mentions this is an 'admin action,' further clarifying its administrative nature.

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: 'Use get_egg to verify the egg before deleting.' It also warns about consequences ('Servers currently using this egg will NOT be deleted but may not start correctly'), indicating when not to use it carelessly. No direct alternatives are named, but the context implies verification tools like get_egg.

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