storage_config_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the critical side effect: files already stored externally will no longer be accessible, AND clarifies an important boundary: it does NOT delete the files from the external bucket. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a destructive operation with no annotation safety hints.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the action and primary consequence, the second clarifies an important non-effect. Exceptionally efficient and well-structured.

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 zero-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, the main side effect, and the key boundary (files not deleted). Minor gap: it doesn't mention whether this can be reversed or if there are prerequisites (e.g., must configure a new provider first), but given the simplicity of the tool, this is sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously, since there are no properties). Per the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning since there are none to document.

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 clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (external storage configuration), and distinguishes it from storage_config_get/update/test by focusing on the delete action. It's clear what this tool does, though it could benefit from more explicit distinction from the sibling storage config tools.

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 this is for removing external storage configuration and notes the consequence (files no longer accessible), which gives usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs storage_config_update or when not to use it, and there's no mention of prerequisites or recovery options beyond the implicit destructive nature.

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