storage_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does the most important work by flagging destructiveness and disclosing the non-obvious recursive folder behavior that the schema alone would not signal as dangerous. It omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and whether a missing path errors or silently succeeds, which keeps it short of full disclosure.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the destructive warning and then the two scopes. Nothing is padded and the highest-risk information comes first.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key hazard but not the operational details an agent needs, such as whether deletion of a folder is atomic, what happens on a missing object, or what the return value reports. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the trailing-slash folder convention and the default bucket. The description restates the folder-path semantics for the required parameter but adds no format details, constraints, or examples beyond the schema, so this is baseline.

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 gives a specific verb (delete) and resource (Storage object) and clearly defines two operating modes: single object, or every object under a folder when the path ends in '/'. It does not name or contrast with the nearest sibling (e.g., firestore_delete or storage_move) but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'DESTRUCTIVE' prefix signals this is a last-resort operation, and the folder form is explained, but there is no explicit 'use only when…', no suggestion to call storage_list or storage_get_metadata first to verify targets, and no note on what happens if the path does not exist.

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