That's good UI design in tools with powerful destructive capabilities. You make the UI to do lots of things v.s. the few things you do routinely different enough that there's no mistaking them.
Which is why I'm pointing out that to design UIs like these you should fall back on slightly different UIs depending on the severity of the operation.
"1382345166 agents will be affected. Proceed? (y/n)"
Now if the number is formatted for a human to consume, I don't have to break flow and am much less likely to make an "order-of-magnitude error":
"1,382,345,166 (1.4M) agents will be affected. Proceed? (y/n)"
Imagine I just entered a command to remove too many servers that will cause an outage:
"Finished removing servers"
(better than no message, I suppose)
"Finished removing 8 servers"
(better, it's still too late to prevent my mistake
but at least I can figure out the scale of my mistake)
"8 servers will be removed. Press `y` to continue"
(better, no indication of impact but if I'm paying
attention I might catch the mistake)
"40% capacity (8 servers) will be removed.
Load will increase by 66% on the remaining 12 servers.
This is above the safety threshold of a 20% increase.
You can override by entering `live dangerously`."
(preemptive safety check--imagine the text is also red so it stands out)