manage_modal_volume

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by specifying 'removes the volume and ALL its data — irreversible' for the delete action, and by disclosing the return format '{message, stdout, stderr} or {error}'. These details enrich the behavioral picture beyond what structured hints provide, though it could mention reversibility of create/rename or permission requirements.

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 efficient: a one-line summary, a sibling-routing sentence, a concise Args block, and a Returns line. It is front-loaded with purpose and the most important caveat (irreversibility) appears in the action list. Slightly verbose with the 'Returns' line but not bloated; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the 4 parameters, existence of an output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers the essentials: action semantics, parameter requirements, environment constraint, and return type. It could be more explicit about what 'create' does regarding naming (e.g., that volume_name serves as the new name) and whether rename affects existing file references, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool safely.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains every parameter: action with allowed values and the irreversibility note for delete, volume_name as the current name for rename, new_name as required for rename, and env with the environment-scoping rule. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Volume lifecycle' and explicitly lists the three actions (create, delete, rename), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools by directing file-level operations to modal_volume_files and list_modal_resources, so an agent can distinguish it from those alternatives without opening their schemas.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings: 'For the files inside a volume use modal_volume_files (writes) or list_modal_resources(resource="volume_files") (reads).' It also adds a requirement that 'env' must match the volume's environment, which is a concrete precondition for correct invocation. This goes beyond mere context to actionable routing.

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