pve_acme_plugin_delete

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

The description proactively discloses that the tool is a mutation, defaults to dry-run, and explicitly warns of high risk including 'cert auto-renewal breaks — TLS lockout at cert expiry.' This is excellent transparency, especially given no 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?

The description is extremely concise: three sentences, front-loaded with the key action, then execution steps, then risk warning. No superfluous information.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality, execution method, and critical risk. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., plugin existence) or success behavior, but the risk warning makes it sufficiently complete for a delete operation.

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 description adds meaning for the 'confirm' parameter by clarifying it controls execution of the dry-run, which the schema's default does not convey. However, it does not elaborate on the required 'plugin_id' parameter beyond the name, and schema coverage is only 33%.

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 ACME DNS challenge plugin.' It is a mutation verb on a specific resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_acme_plugin_create and pve_acme_plugin_update.

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 explains the dry-run default and how to execute with 'confirm=True', which provides clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the deletion context and risk warning imply appropriate use.

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