Delete backup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as 'Destructive' and warns against proactive or speculative invocation, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It could add permanence or remote-backup implications, but the warning is sufficient.

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 tight: purpose, destructive warning, authorization guidance, and a docs link. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important safety information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, safety profile, and authorization requirement. It does not describe return values, but delete operations typically return minimal or no structured output, so this is not a significant gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the backup belongs to a backup volume, implying 'name' identifies the volume and 'backupName' identifies the specific backup. However, it does not explain naming conventions or how to obtain valid values.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a specific backup belonging to a backup volume'), and its scope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like backupvolume_delete or backupbackingimage_delete.

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 provides a clear authorization condition: do not call unless the user explicitly authorized it in this conversation. However, it does not mention alternatives or when this tool should be chosen over related backup deletion tools.

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