pve_delete_pool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects dependent resources, or has confirmation requirements. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 ('Delete resource pool'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target. While it may be too brief for adequate completeness, as a standalone statement it's perfectly efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation steps, what resources might be affected, or what the tool returns. The combination of a dangerous operation with minimal description creates significant risk for an AI agent trying to use this 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter ('poolid') clearly documented as 'Pool ID'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema fully covers the single parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra context about pool ID format or validation is provided.

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 resource pool' clearly states the action (delete) and target (resource pool), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (like pve_delete_container, pde_delete_vm, etc.), leaving ambiguity about what specifically makes a 'resource pool' different from 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, but the description doesn't indicate what makes a resource pool unique or when deletion is appropriate versus other operations. No prerequisites, warnings, or alternative tools are mentioned.

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