Remove a volume

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot express: the cascade (every file in the volume is deleted) and the irreversibility ('Can't be undone'), plus a required human confirmation step.

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 filler, and the destructive scope is front-loaded before the confirmation instruction. Every clause carries information the caller 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the one parameter is fully documented in the schema. For a destructive single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, blast radius, reversibility, and the required confirmation — nothing material 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already defines 'volume' as name or id. The description's 'naming it' only echoes that the volume identifier must be supplied, adding no format or syntax detail 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?

States a specific verb ('Remove') plus resource ('a volume') and adds scope: the volume's entire contents go with it. An agent can separate this from siblings like remove_container, remove_image, or remove_network purely on the resource noun.

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 a clear operating precondition — confirm with the person first, naming the volume — which is exactly the routing/behavioural cue needed before a destructive call. It does not name alternatives (e.g., list_volumes or inspect_volume to identify the target), so it stops short of 5.

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