object_storage_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the destructive action and a returned 'Status message confirming deletion', but it does not disclose consequences such as irreversibility, data loss, or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded, and free of filler. The Args and Returns sections each earn their place, and the example values make the parameter section useful.

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 delete tool, the description supplies the action, the parameter semantics, and the expected return. It stops just short of perfect completeness by not adding explicit destructiveness/irreversibility caveats, which are especially useful when annotations are absent.

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 schema only says object_storage_id is a string, while the description adds meaningful semantics: it can be an ID or label, with concrete examples including a UUID. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Delete an Object Storage instance' uses a specific verb and resource, and it cleanly distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like object_storage_create/update or block_storage_delete. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 use case is implied: call it when an Object Storage instance needs to be deleted. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor a comparison to related storage operations or delete alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection purely from the resource name.

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