delete_ha_resource

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. It only states the action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the resource is destroyed or just unmanaged), required permissions, or conditions. Critical behavioral context is missing.

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 very concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the action. However, it could be slightly more comprehensive without losing conciseness. Overall, it is well-structured for its length.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple delete operation, especially since an output schema exists. However, it lacks important context about what happens to the underlying resource (e.g., does it delete the VM/container?), which is relevant given sibling tools like delete_container and delete_vm.

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?

The description adds meaning to the sid parameter by specifying its format as 'type:vmid', which is not present in the schema. However, this is minimal; an example or list of possible types would improve it. Still, it compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 action: 'Remove a resource from HA management.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_ha_resource, update_ha_resource, migrate_ha_resource, etc.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description is purely declarative without usage context.

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