Delete backup target

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 labels the operation 'Destructive' and requires explicit user authorization, which are essential behavioral traits for a delete action. It does not detail irreversibility or downstream effects on backups, but the warning is strong and clear.

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 short sentences with the core operation first, followed by the safety warning and a documentation link. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the destructive nature, the authorization requirement, and points to documentation for further detail. It could explicitly state permanence or effects on backups, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to act cautiously.

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%, and the description does not explain the `name` parameter. However, the single parameter is reasonably self-evident from context: 'Delete a backup target' implies `name` identifies the target to delete. It adds no extra format or constraints, but ambiguity is low.

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-object pair, 'Delete a backup target,' which clearly states the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like backuptarget_update, backuptarget_sync, and backuptarget_create. This is unambiguous and directly matches the tool title.

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 an explicit when-not condition: call only with explicit user authorization in the conversation, never proactively, speculatively, or as a side effect. It does not name sibling alternatives, but for a destructive delete the authorization guardrail is the critical usage guidance.

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