pve_delete_role

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete a role' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to users assigned to the role, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps 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 three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's zero wasted language, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context about permissions, consequences, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity of deletion operations in systems like Proxmox VE, more guidance is needed to help an agent use this tool safely and effectively.

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% with one parameter 'roleid' documented as 'Role ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric vs. string), valid values, or where to find role IDs. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 role' clearly states the action (delete) and target (role), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pve_delete_user or pve_delete_group. It's a basic statement of purpose without specificity about what kind of role or system context.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., role must exist, no dependencies), exclusions, or related tools like pve_list_roles or pve_update_role. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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