modal_volume_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does warn that all data is deleted, which is critical context for a destructive operation, but it stops short of stating irreversibility, permission requirements, or consequences for dependent resources.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler, exactly conveying the action and its scope. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 the tool's low complexity, complete schema coverage, and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the essential destructive behavior. However, it could be more complete by explicitly noting that the deletion is permanent, which would fully prepare an agent.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (env and name) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description's phrase 'named Volume' aligns with the 'name' parameter but does not enhance it.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete'), the target resource ('a named Volume'), and the full scope ('all of its data'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like modal_volume_rm that operate on files within a volume.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., volume must exist), and no exclusions or related tool recommendations. The intended use is only implied by the name and description.

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