Remove a volume

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint/readOnlyHint, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the cascade to contained files, irreversibility, a server-side confirmation that names the affected data, and a no-op outcome if the human declines. That decline path is critical context an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the destructive scope front-loaded before the confirmation caveat. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers destruction scope and the interactive confirmation. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't say whether removing a nonexistent volume succeeds (relevant given idempotentHint=true) or what happens when the volume is attached to a container.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema coverage, including the accepted name-or-id format and a pattern, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the identifier beyond implying a single target; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Remove a volume') and immediately scopes the blast radius ('every file in it'), which distinguishes it from sibling remove_network/remove_container/remove_image that act on other resource types. No ambiguity about what the tool affects.

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?

Gives clear operational context that shapes when to call it: irreversibility and an interactive confirmation the caller must anticipate. It does not name alternatives (e.g. prune, create_volume) or state preconditions such as a volume being in use, so it stops short of an explicit when/when-not rubric.

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