Salvage volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly flags the operation as 'Destructive' and warns that replica names may be 'potentially stale,' which is meaningful risk context. It stops short of explaining exactly what is destroyed or whether the operation is irreversible, but it gives a clear safety warning.

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 short and front-loaded: the core action comes first, the destructive warning second, and a docs link last. Every sentence contributes. The docs URL is somewhat long and may not be salvage-specific, but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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?

The description covers the essential warning and gives a docs pointer, but it omits operational preconditions such as whether the volume must be in a failed/detached state, what exactly happens to the volume, and what the response indicates. For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, a bit more operational context would make it more complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps replicaNames to the 'list of (potentially stale) replica names' and implies that 'name' identifies the volume being salvaged. This adds meaning beyond the bare string/array types in the schema, though it could explicitly name the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Salvage') and a specific resource ('a volume'), and further narrows the action by saying it operates 'from a list of (potentially stale) replica names.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like volume_delete or volume_replica_remove, and there is no other salvage tool in the sibling list.

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 strong when-not 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.' This is explicit usage context, though it does not mention alternative tools or conditions that would make a sibling more appropriate.

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