pve_delete_guest

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

Without any annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's destructive and irreversible nature, the dry-run safety mechanism, the need for confirm=True to execute, and the asynchronous return (UPID). This is comprehensive and prevents accidental misuse.

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—and front-loads the most critical information ('MUTATION (DESTRUCTIVE, IRREVERSIBLE)'). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity of a destructive, irreversible tool with async behavior, the description covers the essential behavioral flow (dry run → plan → confirm) and return type (UPID). However, it lacks parameter explanations for 6 out of 7 parameters, which reduces completeness for an agent that needs to correctly invoke the tool.

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 only 14% schema description coverage, the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. It only mentions 'confirm=True to execute', but does not explain critical parameters like force, purge, kind, node, or vmid. The agent would need to infer or look elsewhere for parameter semantics.

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 core action ('permanently destroy a guest and its disks') and uses the explicit term 'DESTRUCTIVE, IRREVERSIBLE'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that involve backup, cloning, or migration by focusing on permanent deletion.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Dry-run by default — the PLAN names exactly what will be destroyed. confirm=True to execute.' It tells the agent to start with a dry run and confirm only after reviewing the plan. While it does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, the guidance is actionable and safe.

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