storage_gateway_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool deletes a storage gateway but does not disclose irreversibility, impact on exports or data, permissions required, or whether the operation can be undone. 'Returns: Success confirmation' is not behavioral transparency for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded with the operation, and includes only the essential parameter and return information. Each sentence contributes a distinct piece of value with 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 destructive mutation with no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits any warning about cascade effects, irreversibility, requirements, or confirmations that a user or agent should check before invoking the delete. The output schema does not compensate for missing destructive-operation 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 input schema provides no description and coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does this well by stating that gateway_identifier accepts either a gateway label or ID and noting smart identifier resolution. This gives the agent enough semantic understanding to select an appropriate identifier, though it does not detail disambiguation rules or identifier lookup.

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 action and resource: 'Delete a storage gateway.' It is clear and distinguishes this from deleting exports or other resources, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like storage_gateway_delete_export. The first sentence mostly restates the tool name but adds enough clarity to be usable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warnings about dependencies. The only usage-related note, 'Use gateway label or ID,' is about the parameter, not about when to call delete versus an update or export deletion. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context entirely.

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