delete-network-volume

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the consequence 'cannot be undone', which reinforces the destructive nature but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately convey the action and permanence. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simple destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the key context (permanence). However, it could mention that deletion is irreversible and potentially affects dependent resources, but given the simplicity, it is mostly 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?

The schema already documents the sole parameter networkVolumeId with a clear description. The tool description does not add any further meaning, such as format or example. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action 'permanently delete' and the resource 'network volume', clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete tools targeting other resources like delete-endpoint or delete-pod. It also emphasizes irreversibility.

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 implies usage when permanent deletion is desired, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update-network-volume) or mention prerequisites like volume being unused. It lacks exclusions or context for decision-making.

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