Delete an Endpoint Storage

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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent/openWorld, but the description goes further: it discloses the refusal guard, the cascade effect that exporting versions stop exporting, that the bucket and existing logs survive, and that the operation is irreversible. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the primary target, and every sentence carries operational content with no filler. The middle sentences are dense and slightly clause-heavy, which costs a point on readability but not on usefulness.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, it covers the guard conditions, side effects, irreversibility, escalation path, and the safety valve (dry_run is documented in the schema). Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the name must be an exact single name, and max_pull_profiles carries a coupled semantics (profiles go with the storage; default 0 blocks deletion). It does not spend words repeating dry_run, which the schema already explains well.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete one Endpoint Storage') plus the intended scenario ('to clean up a test one'). It also contrasts with edgegap_list_endpoint_storage / create siblings implicitly by being the removal counterpart and names edgegap_delete_pull_profile as a different action, so an agent can place it precisely.

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?

Explicitly gives the preconditions and the fallback paths: refused when pull profiles exceed max_pull_profiles, then either delete them with edgegap_delete_pull_profile or raise the threshold 'after the developer agreed'. It also says when to confirm with the developer before deleting a storage this conversation did not create.

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