delete_guest

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and effectively discloses critical behaviors: irreversible deletion, prerequisite (guest must be stopped), destruction of disk images, and a confirmation safety step. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers key destructive traits.

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 front-loaded with the core action and warning, followed by structured parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition—making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 high complexity of a destructive operation, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, safety, and parameter semantics, but lacks details on permissions, error cases, or post-deletion effects, leaving minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: vmid is explained as 'numeric ID of the VM or container to delete', and confirm is detailed with its safety role ('Must be true to execute. First call without confirm shows a warning'), going beyond the basic schema types.

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 clearly states the action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a VM or container'), distinguishing it from siblings like stop_guest or delete_snapshot by emphasizing irreversibility and destruction of disk images.

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?

It provides explicit prerequisites ('The guest must be stopped before deletion') and a safety mechanism ('First call without confirm shows a warning'), but does not specify when to use this versus alternatives like delete_snapshot or restore_backup, though the irreversible nature is implied.

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