release_volume

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining irreversibility, the confirm=true requirement, and the asynchronous nature with polling. Since annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable operational details like needing confirmation and how to track progress.

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 brief, with key information front-loaded (action, irreversibility, confirm flag, async behavior). Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the critical need-to-know details: the action is permanent, requires confirmation, and is async. The only minor gap is lack of guidance on the volume_id parameter, but it's self-explanatory.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions confirm=true requirement, which sheds light on the confirm parameter, but does not explain volume_id beyond its name. The description adds some value but could provide more detail on the parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Permanently release (delete) a standalone volume') and distinguishes it from detaching. It explicitly contrasts with sibling 'detach_volume', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It implies when to use this tool (when you want permanent deletion, not just detach) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implicit contrast. While the context is clear, there's no direct routing to other tools for other operations.

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