rbd_image_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns '[WRITE][risk=high]', states that deletion removes 'ALL its data', calls the operation 'Irreversible', and offers a dry-run preview, making the destructive side effects unambiguous.

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 tightly structured: a bold risk warning is front-loaded, followed by a single dry-run tip and a compact parameter list. Every sentence and line adds practical value, with no repetition or filler.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: purpose, irreversible data loss, preview mechanism, and parameter semantics. An agent can confidently decide whether and how to invoke this destructive operation.

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 0%, but the Args block adds meaningful semantics for every parameter: pool_name locates the image, image_name identifies the specific image from rbd_ls, dry_run controls preview behavior, and target explains how to select or default the Ceph target. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 begins with 'Delete an RBD image and ALL its data', naming a specific verb, resource, and destructive scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as rbd_snapshot_delete or pool_delete, and the [WRITE][risk=high] marker reinforces its purpose.

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 gives clear operational guidance with 'Pass dry_run=True to preview' and notes that image_name should come from rbd_ls, establishing a workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus related deletion tools, but the intended context is clear.

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