volume_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that volumes in use cannot be removed, but it does not warn that removal is permanent/destructive, mention required permissions, or describe error behavior when a volume does not exist without force. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple removal tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It includes the key in-use constraint, but it lacks an explicit warning about data loss and the 'one or more volumes' wording is slightly misleading. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more caveat would make it truly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and already documents 'name' and 'force' adequately. The description adds no parameter-level details, and the phrase 'one or more volumes' is ambiguous given that the schema defines a single 'name' string parameter, so there is no added value beyond the 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 states 'Remove one or more volumes' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like volume_create and volume_list. The added caveat about volumes in use provides scope and further clarifies the tool's behavior.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as volume_list or container_remove. The in-use constraint implies a condition for failure but does not name alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage to be inferred from the purpose.

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