delete_iso_image

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by naming the endpoint, explicitly restating destructiveness, and disclosing the authorization restriction for non-staff users. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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, purposeful sentences: the action with endpoint, the destructive warning, and the access caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restating.

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, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers the operation, ID-based targeting, confirmation requirement via schema, and access restriction; a minor gap is not pointing the agent to a sibling like list_iso_images for obtaining a valid ISO ID, though that is inferable.

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%, with both id and confirm already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the 'by ID' phrasing, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the exact action (Удалить/delete), the target resource (ISO-образ), and the required identifier (by ID), plus the endpoint iso/delete. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_iso_images, mount_iso, unmount_iso, and add_iso_image.

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 provides useful access context by warning that the operation is staff-only and that clients will likely receive a permission error, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is implied rather than fully guided.

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