storage_gateway_delete_export

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation and returns a success confirmation. It does not mention potential irreversible changes, any permissions required, or what happens if the export is in use. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 very concise with no redundant sentences. It includes a brief example of the Args format and a Returns line, which is efficient and front-loaded with the action and key details.

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?

Given that this is a simple delete operation with two parameters and an output schema (though not detailed), the description covers the essential invocation details. However, it lacks information on edge cases (e.g., what happens if export doesn't exist, or idempotency). Since output schema exists, return details are not required, but behavioral risks are not addressed.

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%, but the description gives a short line for each parameter: 'Gateway label or ID' and 'Export ID to delete'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's raw types (string/integer), clarifying that gateway_identifier is a label or ID. This is helpful but not detailed (e.g., ID format, label constraints).

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 the verb 'delete' and resource 'export from a storage gateway', which clearly indicates the action and target. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'storage_gateway_delete' (which likely deletes the gateway itself) and 'storage_gway_add_export' (which adds exports), so the purpose is clear.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., need to check the export exists, or that the gateway must be in a certain state). It provides no context on when deletion is appropriate or what might block it.

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