delete_storage

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It explicitly states that existing backups are NOT deleted, which is a critical side-effect beyond the obvious deletion. This adds meaningful context about the operation's impact, though it does not mention reversibility or permission requirements.

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 and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. The 'Args:' block is somewhat redundant with the schema but still adds a human-readable clarification. Overall, every part earns its place with no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema present. The description covers the action, the parameter meaning, and the most important contextual detail (backups are preserved). It does not explain error handling or return values, but the output schema likely covers those, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 provides only 'name' with a generic title, and description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that 'name' is the 'Storage name to remove,' giving clear meaning to the only parameter. This is exactly what the agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a storage configuration') and the resource (storage configuration), which is specific and unambiguous. It also adds a clarifying note about existing backups not being deleted, further distinguishing the tool's behavior from a more destructive delete.

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 usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like delete_repository or create_storage. The note about backups is a caution rather than a usage rule, so it does not fully clarify when this tool should be selected.

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