Delete 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 explicitly labels the operation as 'Destructive' and requires explicit user authorization. It could go further by describing irreversibility or data-loss consequences, but the safety-critical behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: action, destructive warning, authorization condition, and a documentation link. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the safety precondition and points to documentation. It does not spell out what happens to the volume's data or dependent resources, but the simple input schema and clear intent make this adequate in context.

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?

The single required parameter `name` is not described in the text, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the parameter's meaning is trivially inferable from the tool name and the one-string schema, so the lack of explicit compensation is a minor gap rather than a serious one.

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 begins with a clear, specific action: 'Delete a Longhorn volume.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling volume tools like volume_create, volume_attach, or volume_snapshot_delete by naming the exact resource and operation.

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 explicit authorization guidance: do not call unless the user has explicitly authorized it, and never proactively, speculatively, or as a side effect. This is a strong when-not condition, and because deletion has no meaningful alternative tool, no alternative routing is needed.

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