delete_tkc_cluster

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses critical behaviors: safety checks on workloads, the forced skip option, and the dry-run preview mode. It fully alerts the agent to the destructive nature and safety gates.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by SAFETY, IMPORTANT, and Args sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and safety requirements.

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?

Given the complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, safety, and key parameters. However, it omits the 'target' parameter and does not explain the return value or error scenarios beyond the workload check. This leaves some gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining 5 of 6 parameters (name, namespace, confirmed, dry_run, force), including their roles (e.g., 'confirmed: Must be True to proceed'). However, the 'target' parameter is not mentioned, leaving a gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Delete a TKC cluster.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_tkc_cluster, upgrade_tkc_cluster, etc. The '[WRITE]' prefix further clarifies the operation type.

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: it requires confirmed=True and dry_run=False to actually delete. It also explains the safety check (rejects if workloads running unless force=True). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like delete_namespace or mention non-use cases.

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