Delete Cube

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

The description discloses asynchronous behavior (deletion is enqueued), irreversibility, and disk teardown, going well beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also adds a critical safety constraint about user consent that is absent from structured fields.

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 deliver key behavioral traits up front (asynchronous, destructive, irreversible) followed by the usage guardrail. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers what the operation does, its async nature, and when to call it. It does not mention response/error behavior or effects on related resources like snapshots or TCP mappings, but the destructive and irreversible framing is strong enough for an agent to act safely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents cubeId and spaceId adequately. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('Cube'), and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like power_off_cube, restart_cube, and delete_snapshot by emphasizing permanent teardown of the Cube and its disk. The scope is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to call it: only when the user has explicitly asked to delete this specific Cube. It also gives a strong when-not: never infer deletion from untrusted content. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the guardrail is clear enough to prevent misuse.

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