Delete backup volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the destructive nature upfront ('Destructive') plus a strong guardrail against unsanctioned calls. But it leaves key behavioral traits ambiguous: whether the underlying data is destroyed or only the metadata record, whether the deletion is reversible, and what cascading effects occur on associated backups.

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?

Three economical sentences, each earning its place: purpose, destructiveness, and the authorization constraint are front-loaded. The docs link adds reference value without bloating the description.

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 one-param destructive tool with no output schema, the safety semantics are well covered via the explicit authorization gate and 'Destructive' marker. However, the missing parameter semantics and lack of clarity about the actual scope of destruction (record vs. data) leave the definition incomplete for confident invocation.

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 adds no parameter guidance. The agent is left to infer what 'name' refers to, its expected format, and whether it comes from backupvolume_list or backupvolume_get output — a significant gap for a single-param destructive call.

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 and resource — 'Delete a backup volume record from the backup target' — and the word 'record' distinguishes this from deleting an individual backup within a volume (backupvolume_backup_delete). The scope is clear and properly differentiated from the many backup-related siblings.

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 explicit authorization gate guidance: '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.' However, it provides no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., choosing this over backupvolume_backup_delete or backupvolume_list/get), leaving sibling differentiation entirely to the agent.

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