delete_volume

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it labels the operation as 'IRREVERSIBLE: the volume and its data are gone for good,' specifies the auth scope, and explains the confirm parameter's behavior (omit/false results in refusal). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with three brief sentences that front-load the purpose and key behavioral points. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, permissions, irreversibility, and parameter usage. It could mention billing impact or recovery options, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a delete operation.

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 parameter descriptions are already detailed. The description for id ('id comes from list_volumes') duplicates the schema, and the confirm behavior is also echoed. Minimal additional value over 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?

The description clearly states 'Delete a block storage volume permanently,' specifying the action (delete) and resource (block storage volume). It distinguishes from sibling tools like detach_volume or delete_network by naming the resource type.

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 mentions the permission requirement ('Requires scope services:write') and the confirm parameter condition, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like detach_volume or reinstall. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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