qemu_media_delete

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, so the deletion risk is known. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the mounted/unmounted precondition and revealing that force=true triggers a side effect — ejecting the ISO first before deleting. This is the kind of behavioral trait an agent cannot derive from the schema or annotations.

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?

Two sentences totaling roughly fifteen words, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional force behavior in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of the tool name or schema content.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential decision space: the unmounted precondition, the mounted-with-force behavior, and the object of deletion. Minor omissions include error behavior when mounted without force and confirmation of permanence, but the destructiveHint annotation mitigates the latter.

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 carries the parameter-semantics burden. It does explain force, the least obvious parameter, by tying it to the mounted-state behavior. However, vm_id and media_id are left entirely to their names and regex patterns — reasonably inferable, but not explicitly described.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Delete') with a specific resource ('managed ISO') and a defining precondition ('unmounted'), making the tool's scope unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as qemu_media_eject (eject only), qemu_media_mount, and fs_delete without needing to open their schemas.

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 communicates the key usage condition — the ISO should be unmounted — and explains that force=true is the path when it is mounted, which is genuinely useful routing context. However, it never names alternatives like qemu_media_eject (for eject-only workflows) or qemu_media_list (for finding media_id), so the agent must infer when this tool is preferred over siblings.

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