Delete backing image

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure itself. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Destructive' and forbids unprompted use, which is the critical safety-relevant behavior. It does not detail failure modes or side effects on volumes using the image, but the essential risk is clearly stated and supported by a documentation link.

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 three terse sentences: the action, the destructive warning, and the documentation reference. The critical information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the action, the destructive risk, and the authorization rule, and links to detailed docs. It does not describe return values or downstream consequences, but those are less critical given the explicit destructive warning.

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 parameter meaning. Saying 'Delete a backing image' implicitly identifies `name` as the target resource, but the description never explicitly defines `name` as the unique identifier or explains the expected format.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Delete a backing image.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like backingimage_list, backingimage_get, and backingimage_create, and matches the title exactly.

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 gives an explicit authorization gate: '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 is strong context for when deletion is permitted, though it does not compare this tool to related maintenance alternatives like backingimage_cleanup.

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