delete_storage

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's extra value lies in explaining irreversibility and the confirm-gating workflow. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations, especially the requirement for a summary-then-confirm pattern.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action and consequence, and the second provides the required workflow. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name exists.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the action, irreversibility, confirmation flow, and user-consent requirement. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly, even though the exact summary format is not described.

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 must compensate. It fully explains the confirm parameter by tying confirm=false to the summary step and confirm=true to actual deletion after user approval. However, the path parameter is only indirectly implied as 'a file or folder from storage' and lacks details like path format, root location, or whether it accepts directory paths, leaving a notable gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a file or folder from storage'), and clearly marks the operation as irreversible. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling tools like list_storage, upload_folder, and download_results, which perform different actions on storage.

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 an explicit two-step usage protocol: call with confirm=false first to obtain a summary, show it to the user, and only call with confirm=true after explicit user agreement. This is concrete, actionable guidance that leaves no ambiguity about how to safely invoke the tool.

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