Delete AVD

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key trait 'permanently', which indicates irreversibility. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as whether the AVD must be stopped first, whether associated files are removed, or error behavior if the name does not exist.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word contributes meaningful information ('Delete', 'AVD', 'permanently'), and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, single-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the core action and its irreversible consequence. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. However, given the absence of annotations, it could have mentioned prerequisites or behavior when the AVD is currently running, but this is not critical for a tool this straightforward.

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 coverage for the single parameter 'name' is 100%, with the schema already stating 'AVD name to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning or usage details for this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('an AVD'), with the modifier 'permanently' adding important scope. It is unambiguous and easily understood. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'kill_emulator', which stops but does not delete, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that deletion is irreversible, nor does it distinguish from 'kill_emulator' or note any prerequisites (e.g., stopping the AVD first). There is no 'when-not-to-use' or alternative references.

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