pve_ha_rule_delete

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

With no annotations, the description fully specifies behavioral traits: it's a mutation, dry-run by default, synchronous, no UPID, no undo, and risk medium. It also details the effects on resources and the re-creation revert path.

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 yet packed with essential information. It leads with the core purpose and then layers behavior, parameters, and risk in a logical, front-loaded manner without unnecessary 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the detail in the description covering mutation, dry-run, execution, reversion, and risk, the description meets all contextual needs for a delete tool. No gaps are evident.

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 value by explaining the confirm parameter's impact (dry-run vs execution) and the implications of deletion on resources, going beyond the schema's basic 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 explicitly states 'delete an HA rule' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_ha_rule_create and pve_ha_rule_update by mentioning re-creation for revert, and the resource is clearly identified as an HA 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 clearly explains the dry-run default and how to execute with confirm=True, and mentions the revert option using pve_ha_rule_create. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context and behavior are well conveyed.

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