storage_config_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by spelling out the real-world consequence (existing externally stored files become inaccessible) and the important boundary (files in the external bucket are NOT deleted). That is precisely the context an agent needs before invoking 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequence, then the non-consequence. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated.

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?

Zero params, no output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is close to sufficient. It omits what happens after deletion (e.g., whether storage falls back to a default or local backend, and whether elevated permissions are required), which would matter for an agent deciding to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete the external storage configuration') that is unambiguously distinct from siblings like storage_config_get, storage_config_update, and storage_config_test. An agent can tell exactly what object is removed without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description conveys that this tears down external storage and makes existing files inaccessible, which signals caution, but it never states when to prefer this over reconfiguring via storage_config_update or what prerequisites must hold. No explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.

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