wsl_destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the critical fact that deletion is irreversible and that files are deleted. It also discloses the return value format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence and a compact Args/Returns section. The Returns section is somewhat redundant with the output schema, but it adds context without bloating the description.

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 tool with a single parameter, the description covers the essential behavior, irreversibility, and return format. It stops short of explaining edge cases like non-existent distros, but the output schema and annotations provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It summarizes the parameters as 'distro name and whether to delete files', which conveys the core purpose but omits details like remove_files defaulting to true and being optional. This is minimal but acceptable compensation.

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 'Terminate and unregister a WSL distro' with a specific verb and resource, and highlights the irreversible deletion of files. This distinguishes it from read-only WSL tools like wsl_status and wsl_list_distros, though it could still be confused with wsl_destroy_all_temp.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention wsl_destroy_all_temp for bulk temp destruction or any conditions for using wsl_destroy, leaving the agent to rely on the tool name alone.

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