destroy_vm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses irreversibility and disk deletion, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or confirmation requirements. With zero annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence starting with 'DANGER' for emphasis, no wasted words. It efficiently conveys critical information.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary action and danger but lacks context on prerequisites, rollback, or task tracking. Adequate for a destructive tool but not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the input schema. Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool destroys (deletes) a VM or container and its disks, using specific verbs like 'Supprime définitivement' and 'Action irréversible'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_vm, shutdown_vm, clone_vm which do not destroy.

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 strongly implies danger and irreversibility, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives, nor provides exclusions or context. Usage guidance is only implied by the cautionary tone.

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