Clean up backing image copies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly marks the operation as 'Destructive' and adds the critical authorization constraint. It could go further by describing what is irreversibly removed, but the destructive flag and safety warning are substantial.

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, front-loads the core purpose, then delivers a critical safety warning, then provides a documentation link. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 covers purpose, destructive nature, and authorization constraints, but it leaves parameter semantics unexplained and does not describe the result or side effects on the backing image. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, a more complete definition would define the two required parameters explicitly.

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 compensate for the missing parameter meaning. It gives a vague hint via 'on the given disks' for the disks parameter, but it never defines what 'name' refers to or how disks should be specified. An agent cannot confidently resolve parameter semantics from this text alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Clean up') with a specific resource ('backing image file copies') and scope ('on the given disks'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like backingimage_delete, which would target the backing image itself rather than copies on specific disks.

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 explicit authorization requirements: 'Do not call this unless the user has explicitly authorized it in this conversation — never proactively, speculatively, or as a side effect of another task.' This gives strong, unambiguous guidance on when the tool may be invoked.

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