Delete Guest

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by stating the elevated permission requirement and clarifying the VM/LXC type distinction. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the target resource, and the permission caveat in a compact and immediately scannable format.

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 simple deletion tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essential operational context: what is deleted, the required parameters, the elevated permission requirement, and the destructive nature. It could mention consequences like permanent removal of disks, but the destructiveHint annotation mitigates that gap.

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 67%, with 'node' and 'vmid' already described in the schema. The description adds semantic meaning for the 'type' parameter by pairing 'vm' with 'VM' and 'lxc' with 'LXC container', which is helpful but modest. It does not add further parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly identifies the resource types ('VM' and 'LXC container'), including how the 'type' parameter maps to each. It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like proxmox_guest_stop or proxmox_guest_shutdown, which imply non-destructive state changes.

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 clearly implies the tool is for permanent removal of a guest rather than stopping or shutting it down, and it adds a prerequisite ('requires elevated permissions'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the deletion intent is contextually clear enough for tool selection.

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