esxi_delete_vm

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the powered-off precondition and the fact that dry-run surfaces disk deletion, which is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs for a destructive tool.

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?

A single compact sentence with the precondition front-loaded and no filler. Appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity contributes to the parameter gaps noted elsewhere.

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 need no explanation. But for a destructive, 0%-coverage 3-parameter tool with two required params, the description omits the meaning of expected_name and gives no when-to-use routing, leaving clear gaps.

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 carries the full burden. It only illuminates dry_run's behavior ('dry-run 明示删除磁盘'); the required expected_name safety-confirmation parameter and vm_id are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource (delete VM), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the create/power/configure siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives one hard prerequisite ('必须已关机' — must be powered off), which is genuine usage guidance. However it never says when to prefer this over related operations such as powering off first, or what to use instead for non-destructive teardown.

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