storage_container_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it discloses the audit tier ('review'), the NUTANIX_AUDIT_APPROVED_BY / NUTANIX_AUDIT_RATIONALE environment variables for attribution, and that prior capacity/RF is captured on the audit trail. These are real operational facts an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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-loads the [WRITE][risk=high] tag and the destructive warning before the trailing audit metadata, so the most decision-relevant content comes first. The audit-tier detail is slightly dense but each sentence carries distinct information.

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 high-risk mutation with no output schema, it covers dry-run behavior, approval env vars, audit capture, and target selection, which is close to complete. It stops short of stating what a successful (non-dry-run) invocation returns or how long deletion takes, a minor gap given the tool's risk profile.

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%, and the Args block compensates fully: ext_id's provenance (from storage_container_list), dry_run's exact semantics (return what WOULD be deleted), and target's meaning (Prism Central target from config, omit for default). All three parameters are given meaning absent from the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a storage container') and immediately frames it as destructive and high risk. It is cleanly distinguished from the sibling storage_container_list/create/update tools by naming the delete operation and its blast radius.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'pass dry_run=True first', which is actionable sequencing guidance, and notes that ext_id comes from storage_container_list. It does not spell out when deletion is inappropriate beyond the blanket destructiveness warning, so it stops just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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