volume_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a destructive operation ('Delete'), implies permanent removal ('Storage cleanup'), and suggests caution with prerequisites and related tools. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which would be valuable for a deletion tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet-pointed guidelines and related information. Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable context without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 complexity (destructive deletion), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and prerequisites. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., data loss irreversibility) or response expectations, which would enhance completeness for such a critical 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'volumeId' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('Delete a volume from a service') with the resource ('volume') and scope ('from a service'), distinguishing it from siblings like volume_create, volume_list, and volume_update. It uses a precise verb and identifies the target resource explicitly.

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 explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming specific use cases (e.g., 'Removing unused storage') and exclusions (e.g., 'Temporary data removal'). It also lists prerequisites ('volume_list') and related tools ('service_update'), offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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