qemu_media_delete

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the force parameter's eject-first behavior and the critical side-effect that the VM remains locked by the session, requiring vm_unlock. This is valuable behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 three concise sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds force semantics and the lock requirement. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundant words.

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?

The description covers the main action, the conditional force behavior, and the important post-condition (lock remains). It does not explicitly state error conditions (e.g., if the ISO is mounted and force=false), but for a simple deletion tool with no output schema, the information is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the force parameter ('ejects it first when it is mounted'). The vm_id and media_id parameters are self-evident from their names and the tool context, though the description does not elaborate on them. This is partial, but not full, compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool's action: 'Delete an unmounted managed ISO.' The verb 'delete' and resource 'managed ISO' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like qemu_media_mount, qemu_media_eject, and qemu_vm_delete.

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 implies when to use this tool: for deleting an ISO, with force=true if it is mounted. It also gives an important usage constraint by noting the VM remains locked and instructing to call vm_unlock. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using qemu_media_eject for a simple eject.

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