qemu_vm_delete

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the trash is recoverable, that only the three newest entries are retained, and that the VM remains locked requiring an explicit vm_unlock. These are important behavioral details that the annotations (destructiveHint=true) do not capture. No contradiction exists.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses two sentences to convey the action, the retention constraint, and the critical lock/unlock contract—no wasted 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 essential operational context: recoverability, retention limit, and the lock lifecycle. It omits any explanation of the force parameter, which is a notable gap for a potential risk-mitigating option. Otherwise, it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 defines vm_id and force with no descriptions, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. In particular, the 'force' parameter semantics are entirely unexplained, leaving it ambiguous whether force bypasses locks or affects retention. The description should have addressed this.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and clearly identifies the resource (managed QEMU VM) and destination (recoverable broker trash), distinguishing it from permanent deletion or other VM operations. It also notes the retention policy, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you want to delete a VM but keep it recoverable) and explains the retention limitation. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like qemu_vm_trash_empty, but the recoverable nature and lock note provide clear usage context.

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