pve_delete_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a container' implies a destructive operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, or what happens to associated resources. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's zero waste or unnecessary verbiage - every word earns its place.

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 operation with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the consequences of deletion, what 'container' means in this context, error conditions, or return values. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant guessing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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?

The description 'Delete a container' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (container), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'pve_delete_vm' or 'pve_delete_container_snapshot' - it's unclear what makes a container different from these other deletable resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (delete_vm, delete_container_snapshot, delete_storage, etc.), but the description doesn't explain when a container should be deleted versus other resources, nor does it mention prerequisites or dependencies.

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