vm_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds material context beyond them: irreversibility, absence of an undo token, the audit trail location (~/.proxmox-aiops/audit.db), the confirmation requirement, and the dry-run escape hatch. This is exactly the behavioral detail a mutation tool needs.

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-loads the [WRITE] marker and the irreversible warning before any parameter detail, then lists args compactly. Every sentence carries unique information 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 destructive delete with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers safety warnings, confirmation protocol, audit behavior, preview mode, and all four parameters. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so for all four parameters: vmid ('numeric Proxmox VM id'), dry_run ('preview without destroying'), target ('Proxmox target name from config'), and node ('omit to auto-locate the VM'). The auto-location behavior for node is genuinely non-obvious detail not present in the schema.

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 (destroy) and resource (VM), with the [WRITE] tag and 'Permanently' scoping it clearly against reversible siblings like vm_stop, vm_shutdown, and vm_reboot. An agent can distinguish this from every other vm_* tool without opening a 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?

Gives clear operational context: 'Confirm with the user before calling' and 'Pass dry_run=True to preview.' The 'IRREVERSIBLE — no undo token' note implicitly contrasts with the undo_* siblings. However, it never explicitly names the reversible alternatives (vm_stop, vm_shutdown) that an agent should prefer, so it falls short of the explicit when-not guidance a 5 requires.

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