pve_delete_ha_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete HA resource' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on dependent services), or provides confirmation feedback. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap in transparency.

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 two words, but this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. It lacks necessary context and structure, failing to front-load critical information. While not verbose, it's too sparse to be helpful, earning a low score for inadequate content.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or provide any completeness for a mutation tool. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without external knowledge.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'sid' documented as 'HA resource ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this schema information—it doesn't explain how to obtain the ID, format requirements, or examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 HA resource' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_delete_ha_resource'. While it clarifies the verb 'delete' and resource 'HA resource', it doesn't specify what an HA resource is (High Availability resource in Proxmox VE context) or distinguish it from similar deletion tools like pve_delete_ha_group. The purpose is vague beyond the obvious.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to identify the resource ID first), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or relationships to sibling tools like pve_list_ha_resources or pve_delete_ha_group. There's no context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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