Upgrade volume engine image

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 so thoroughly: it declares 'Destructive,' discloses that 'image is not validated against a known-good list,' and states the failure consequence ('a bad image can make the volume inoperable'). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, risk, destructive flag, and authorization rule, capped with a docs link. The key safety information is front-loaded before the parameter discussion.

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 two-scalar-param destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no enums, this description covers purpose, danger, validation gap, and the exact conversational consent required before invocation, plus a reference link. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it safely is missing.

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 adds real meaning to `image` (no known-good validation, risk of inoperability) and implies `name` identifies the target volume, but it does not specify expected formats (e.g., whether image is an image name or URL) or clarify `name` beyond the implication.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Upgrade the engine image used by a volume.' This is distinct from sibling engineimage_create/update (which manage the image catalog) and volume_update_setting (which changes volume settings), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when/when-not conditions: only call when 'the user has explicitly authorized it in this conversation' and 'never proactively, speculatively, or as a side effect of another task.' It names no alternative sibling tool, but for a destructive operation the authorization guardrail is the critical guidance.

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