delete_iso_image

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

It reinforces the destructiveHint with 'ДЕСТРУКТИВНО' and adds non-obvious behavior: the tool is staff-only and likely returns a permission error for clients. It also discloses the underlying endpoint 'iso/delete'. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true 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?

The description is three short clauses: the action, the endpoint, the destructiveness warning, and the access caveat. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler or redundant explanation.

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 low-complexity tool with two required parameters, a fully documented schema, and annotations covering destructiveness, the description covers the key decision factors: what it deletes, how destructive it is, and who may call it. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema, and the permission caveat addresses the most likely failure mode.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema: it does not elaborate on the id format or the confirm flag beyond what the properties already state.

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 opens with 'Удалить ISO-образ по ID', a specific verb ('delete'), resource ('ISO image'), and selection criterion ('ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_iso_image, upload_iso, mount_iso, and unmount_iso because the operation is explicitly deletion.

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?

The description gives a concrete usage constraint: the operation is available only to Hostkey employees, and clients will likely receive a permission error. It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling performs ISO deletion, so the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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