delete_tkc_cluster

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: it returns {name, namespace, status: 'deleting'}, defaults to a dry run unless dry_run=False AND confirmed=True, is irreversible, and is refused while workloads exist unless force=True. These details align with annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) and add significant operational context.

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?

Every sentence carries essential information: the action, return value, safety guardrails, irreversibility, and the alternative tool. The structure breaks into clear labeled sections (WRITE, Returns, SAFETY) and wastes no 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?

Given an absent output schema, the description provides the return shape and preview behavior. It covers safety conditions, dry-run semantics, irreversibility, and even the prerequisite for a related operation (delete_namespace). Nothing needed to invoke or decide on this tool is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between dry_run and confirmed ('dry run unless you pass dry_run=False AND confirmed=True') and that force skips the workload check. This clarifies parameter semantics beyond the schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a TKC cluster and all of its nodes.' It also differentiates from scale_tkc_cluster by noting it deletes the entire cluster rather than reducing node count, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicit routing guidance is provided: 'use scale_tkc_cluster instead for fewer nodes' and 'Empty a namespace of TKC clusters before delete_namespace accepts it.' It also states when deletion is refused (if Deployments/StatefulSets run) unless force=True, giving clear conditions for proper use.

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