shelly_virtual_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructiveness is known. The description adds the meaningful safety gate (requires confirm:true), but doesn't say what cascades from deletion (dependent references, whether the key must exist) or describe the response, leaving gaps on a destructive mutation.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action and key format before the confirm requirement.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a destructive mutation with 0% schema coverage the description should also address the required ``device`` param and deletion effects. Adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the ``key`` format and the ``confirm`` requirement, but the required ``device`` parameter goes unexplained in both schema and description, so compensation is partial.

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 (delete) and resource (virtual component) and disambiguates the key format as ``<type>:<cid>``, which separates it from scene_delete/script_delete/kvs_delete siblings. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the resource is precise enough to select it.

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 requirement ``confirm:true`` is a useful precondition for invocation, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance (e.g., prefer disable over delete, or how it relates to shelly_virtual_add/list). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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