Delete engine image

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states 'Destructive,' which is a key trait, and adds an authorization guard, but it does not disclose the operation's consequences (e.g., whether it is reversible, whether running workloads are affected, or what specifically gets removed). The docs link offers supplemental information, but the description itself is thin.

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 concise, purposeful sentences: the action, the destructive warning with usage guard, and a documentation link. No filler or redundancy; the most important caution 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 delete tool with one parameter, the description covers the core action and authorization constraint. However, the lack of parameter documentation and minimal behavioral detail (beyond 'Destructive') leaves gaps that are especially notable because no annotations or output schema exist to fill them. The docs link partially mitigates this.

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% for the single required 'name' parameter, and the description does not compensate. It never explains that 'name' refers to the Longhorn engine image name or its expected format. While inferable from context, the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema field itself.

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 Longhorn engine image.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling engineimage_list, engineimage_get, and engineimage_create tools by the delete action.

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 conditions: '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.' It does not name alternatives, but for a destructive delete, the primary alternative is abstaining unless authorized, which is clearly communicated.

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