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

Annotations only say readOnly=false and destructive=false, which the description usefully sharpens: it discloses that deletion of a deployed Volume's data is deferred to the next deploy and gated by human approval, while the call itself completes immediately. That is exactly the kind of nuance the annotations cannot carry. No contradiction, since the description explains why the immediate call is not itself destructive.

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?

Three short sentences: action first, then the staging caveat, then the key contrast ("This call asks no human"). No filler and the critical risk information is front-loaded.

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 4-param mutation with annotations but no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral surface: what is unmounted, when data actually dies, and who approves. It stops short of stating what happens for non-deployed volumes, whether the call is idempotent, or how failure/in-use cases surface.

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 75% (project, environment, expect_revision documented in-schema; volume implied by the name). The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all — notably it never mentions expect_revision, the concurrency guard, which is the param most likely to be misused. Baseline 3 given partial schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove a Volume") plus the side effect ("unmount it everywhere"), so the agent knows exactly what happens. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as volume_release or volume_mirror_remove, which an agent comparing them would want.

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 staged-deletion sentence gives useful context about what a removal means for a deployed Volume, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative named (e.g., volume_release vs. volume_remove vs. volume_restore). Usage must be inferred from the semantics.

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