Delete Storage

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial beyond-schema context: the dry-run preview behavior, what the preview includes (pods that mount it), the storage_in_use refusal, and operation_id idempotency semantics. It does not explicitly say the deletion is irreversible beyond 'all data on it', but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 destructive action and preview-first pattern are front-loaded, which is appropriate for a dangerous tool. It is dense with multi-line formatting but each sentence carries operational value; it could be slightly tightened but is not bloated.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps: dry-run flow, sibling reference for the storage identifier, error condition, and operation_id lifecycle. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents `storage` as the pv_name from the storages tool, explains `confirm` semantics precisely, and defines `operation_id` use across preview, confirmation, and retries. Only `workspace` is left undocumented, which is a minor gap.

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 with scope: 'Delete a storage volume and all data on it.' This clearly distinguishes it from create_storage, update_storage, and connect_storage siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-phase workflow: confirm=false returns a preview, confirm=true executes after user agreement. It also names the refusal condition (storage_in_use), the required operation_id handling, and timeout recovery guidance. This is near-complete usage guidance.

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