delete_namespace

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description clearly discloses the destructive scope, irreversibility, default dry-run behavior, the requirement for both dry_run=False AND confirmed=True, the refusal while TKC clusters exist, and the expected return value. This gives the agent a full behavioral model beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 with the [WRITE] signal, then delivers the return value, safety refusal, dry-run requirement, and alternative tool preference. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, this description is complete: it explains the return value, the default preview behavior, the confirmation flags, the blocking condition, and the safer alternative. Combined with the 100% schema coverage and sibling list, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter interplay by explaining that a dry run occurs unless both dry_run=False and confirmed=True are passed. It also clarifies that the preview is the default return. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, though it does not need to restate all parameter details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a vSphere Namespace and everything inside it.' It clearly distinguishes itself from update_namespace by saying 'prefer update_namespace to only change quotas,' and from delete_tkc_cluster by describing the prerequisite of deleting TKC clusters first. An agent can immediately understand the scope and uniqueness of this tool.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use update_namespace instead when only quotas need changing, and use list_tkc_clusters plus delete_tkc_cluster when TKC clusters exist inside the namespace. It also specifies the required safety sequence before this tool will be allowed to act. This is strong routing and prerequisite information.

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