cloud_delete

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds important provider-specific behavior beyond those annotations: deletion is recoverable in O2, Drive, and OneDrive, but blocked elsewhere.

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 a single compact sentence with the provider-recoverability condition front-loaded. Every clause carries useful selection or behavioral information.

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 cloud deletion tool with two required, completely undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers provider behavior but omits required parameter semantics and does not route the agent to sibling alternatives. It is therefore incomplete for safe invocation.

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 0% and both required parameters ('volume' and 'path') are undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention either parameter or clarify expected values, so the agent gets no semantic guidance for required inputs.

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 a deletion action ('Borrado') and scopes it to O2, Drive, and OneDrive, distinguishing provider-specific behavior from other providers. It does not explicitly name the resource type (file/directory), but the action and provider scope are clear enough to select it over generic siblings.

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?

It gives a clear when-not condition: deletion is blocked on providers other than O2, Drive, and OneDrive. It does not name alternatives such as o2_delete, so it falls short of full when-to-use/alternative routing.

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