remove_volume

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: it type-checks the actor and refuses non-volume targets instead of obeying, which is essential for predicting failure. It also discloses the response fields (deleted, already_existed, note?), though it does not state a failure/error mode or rollback behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the guardrail, then the sibling routing. The Returns line is justified because no output schema 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers target type, rejection behavior, alternatives, and the return shape. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already labels actor_name as the AVolume's name, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: any AVolume subclass is acceptable and non-volumes are rejected, which tells the caller how to validate the value before invoking.

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 (Destroy) plus the exact resource (a volume ACTOR, any AVolume subclass) and enumerates concrete subtypes for recognition. It explicitly names the siblings it is the counterpart of (spawn_box_volume / create_volume) and the tools it is not for (remove_trigger_box / remove_trigger_sphere).

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?

Gives explicit routing: use this for AVolume subclasses, use remove_trigger_box / remove_trigger_sphere for TriggerBox or TriggerSphere. The selection condition is stated rather than left to inference.

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