delete_backup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says only 'Delete a backup,' which conveys the action but omits critical details such as irreversibility, whether the operation is immediate, any dependencies on other resources, or potential side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It consists of a single sentence that repeats the tool's name and provides no additional information. A concise description should be compact yet informative; this one is merely minimal and fails to justify its existence.

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?

The description is inadequate for a deletion tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain the effect of deletion (e.g., freeing storage), any required preconditions, or how it relates to the many sibling backup/snapshot tools. Given the complexity of the environment and the absence of structured behavioral hints, the description leaves the agent without essential context.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (node and backupfile), and the coverage is 100%. The description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional parameter clarification is needed.

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 'Delete a backup' is a tautology—it restates the tool name 'delete_backup' without adding any new information. It does not specify what kind of backup (VM, container, etc.) or provide any context that distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools. The verb and resource are present, but no useful specificity is added.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states conditions for use nor mentions when not to use it. The description mentions nothing about prerequisites, such as whether backups must be inactive, or how it differs from deleting snapshots or VMs. The agent is left without any context for decision-making.

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