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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context beyond them: no undo, no backup kept, and user confirmation should be sought first. That is exactly the behavioral information an agent needs before invoking an irreversible 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?

Front-loaded with the destructive effect, followed by safety guidance and the confirmation requirement. Every sentence earns its place and there is no waste.

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 destructive operation with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the remaining essentials: irreversibility, backup loss, user confirmation, and exact-hostname confirmation. Nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so vm, when, and confirm_hostname are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the exact-hostname requirement but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("DESTROYS the machine and its disk") and makes the destructive scope unmistakable. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling VM tools such as power_vm, reinstall_vm, and delete_database.

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?

Gives explicit operational guidance: ask the user first, provide the exact hostname, and note the scope. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as power_vm or reinstall_vm, but the when-to-use condition for a destructive operation is clear.

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