image_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the audit tier ('review'), the optional NUTANIX_AUDIT_APPROVED_BY/RATIONALE approval annotations, the dry_run preview behavior, and that the image's prior name is captured on the audit trail. This is exactly the additional behavioral context annotations cannot 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?

Front-loaded summary, then a compact audit paragraph, then a clean Args block. Every element is useful, though the audit-boilerplate sentence is dense enough that it slightly delays the parameter semantics.

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 mutation with no output schema and no annotation coverage of return values, the description covers parameters, safety preview, and audit implications. It only partially describes what a successful delete or dry_run actually returns, leaving a small gap.

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%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so for all three args: ext_id is tied to its source ('as returned by image_list'), dry_run is defined behaviorally ('return what WOULD be deleted without deleting'), and target explains the config lookup and default.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete an image') and immediately flags the write/high-risk classification, which cleanly separates it from the read-only image_list sibling. An agent needs nothing more to know what this tool does.

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?

It gives a concrete invocation guideline ('pass dry_run=True to preview first') and explains the audit-approval path, so the agent knows the safe way to call it. It does not state when deletion is inappropriate or contrast it with the sibling image_list, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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