pve_firewall_security_group_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutation, dry-run default, PLAN output, and refusal conditions. It could mention the confirm parameter to clarify how to proceed after dry-run, but overall it's transparent.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence provides essential information without waste.

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 it's a delete operation with an output schema (not shown), the description covers key behaviors (dry-run, refusal conditions). It could mention output schema content briefly, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need. Overall complete for the tool's purpose.

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 low (33%). The description adds context for the confirm parameter by stating dry-run is default, but does not explain the group parameter (implied) or confirm parameter explicitly. It adds some value but could more directly map parameters to behavior.

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 states 'delete a cluster security group' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like pve_firewall_security_group_create or pve_firewall_rule_*.

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 context: dry-run by default, PLAN output showing rule count, and refusal conditions (non-empty or referenced). This helps the agent understand when the tool will work, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives.

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