destroy_all_vms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Destroy' implies a destructive operation, the description does not disclose consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion, authorization needs, or what 'destroy' entails).

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 brief with two sentences, but lacks structure such as scope, warnings, or detailed return behavior. It is not excessively long, but could be more informative without adding bulk.

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 that it is a destructive action with no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to provide essential context like irreversibility, scope, or what the success/failure message contains. Incomplete for safe tool usage.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but there is nothing to describe; baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states 'Destroy all VMs' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'destroy_vm' by specifying 'all' rather than an individual VM, but lacks scope clarification (e.g., all VMs in a project or region).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'destroy_vm'. No prerequisites, warnings, or exclusions provided, leaving the agent to 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.