pve_ceph_fs_destroy

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the high-risk, unrecoverable nature of the operation, the refusal condition, the lack of upstream safety checks, the dry-run behavior, and the absence of rollback. All behavioral traits are covered beyond what a schema would indicate.

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 informative and front-loaded with the mutation label and risk level. Every sentence serves a purpose, but it is slightly verbose, containing technical terms (e.g., 'CAPTURE-or-declare', 'ADVERSARIAL — taint marked') that may not be universally clear. A more streamlined explanation could improve readability.

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 destructive nature of the tool, the description covers all critical context: what the tool does, when it fails, the risk of unrecoverability, the dry-run safety mechanism, the pre-planning step, and the return format. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return values.

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 is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning to parameters like remove_storages (tied to the refusal condition) and confirm (explains dry-run default and execution). However, it does not systematically elaborate on each parameter beyond the 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 'destroy a Ceph filesystem', which directly matches the tool name. The verb 'destroy' and resource 'Ceph filesystem' are explicit, and the sibling tools include pve_ceph_fs_create and pve_ceph_fs_list, making the purpose distinct.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: it refuses if a 'cephfs' storage entry references the filesystem unless remove_storages=True. It also explains the dry-run/confirm mechanism and the need to read the filesystem list beforehand via pve_ceph_fs_list. No ambiguous guidance.

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