delete_iso_image

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

The 'DESTRUCTIVE' label duplicates destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new context beyond annotations: the authorization requirement and likely permission failure for clients. It stops short of describing irreversibility or effects on mounted ISOs.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the destructive nature and auth caveat lead. The parenthetical endpoint reference is mildly redundant but compact.

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 single-resource delete with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema documentation, the definition supplies the key extra detail (staff-only access). It omits whether deletion is reversible or how mounted ISOs are affected, a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both id and confirm are fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the 'by ID' concept and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Delete an ISO image by ID') and even names the underlying endpoint (iso/delete). The operation is unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like unmount_iso.

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?

Provides a useful permission caveat ('available only to Hostkey staff — clients will likely get a permission error') that warns when the call will fail, but gives no positive when-to-use framing nor names an alternative operation.

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