pve_delete_vm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't warn that deletion is permanent, mention permission requirements, specify if the VM must be stopped first, describe error conditions, or indicate what happens to associated resources. For a high-stakes destructive tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward purpose, though the simplicity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by directly stating the core action.

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 high complexity (destructive VM deletion with 5 parameters), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety warnings, permission requirements, preconditions, or behavioral outcomes. For a destructive operation in a VM management context, this minimal description leaves critical gaps that could lead to misuse.

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 all 5 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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 virtual machine' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (virtual machine), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_stop_vm or pve_backup_vm by specifying deletion rather than other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from pve_delete_container or pve_delete_vm_snapshot, which are similar deletion tools for different 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be stopped), consequences (irreversible deletion), or when to choose deletion over other VM management tools like pve_stop_vm or pve_reset_vm. 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.