Delete volume

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by emphasizing 'permanently delete', 'ALL its data', and 'cannot be undone'. It effectively communicates the irreversible nature of the operation, which is critical for an AI agent to assess risk.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with a critical risk prefix. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important warning.

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 delete operation, the description adequately covers the core action and risk. It does not mention return values or error cases, but the schema and annotations provide sufficient context. The simplicity of the tool and strong warning make the description complete enough for effective use.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, clearly documenting environmentId, volumeName, and force. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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' and the resource 'Docker volume', with an explicit warning about permanence and data loss. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling volume tools like backup, browse, or prune.

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 provides a strong warning about critical risk and irreversibility, guiding the agent to be cautious. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'arcane_volume_prune' or state when this tool should be preferred over other delete methods. The warning itself serves as a guideline for careful use.

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