pve_mapping_usb_delete

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

The description is fully transparent about the tool's behavior: it is a mutation, does a dry-run by default, and upon confirmation returns a specific payload. It warns about the destructive impact on VMs and the lack of an undo primitive. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and meets it well.

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 at three sentences, each providing essential information: the core action, the dry-run/execute behavior, consequences, and recovery guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 that an output schema exists (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values beyond what it provides. It covers all user-facing aspects: purpose, behavior, side effects, and recovery, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Although the schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, the description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the role of 'confirm' in dry-run vs execution and the meaning of the result. It reinforces the purpose of 'mapping_id' and implicitly covers 'proximo_target' via the schema.

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 starts with 'MUTATION: delete a USB cluster mapping' which clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_mapping_usb_create, pve_mapping_usb_update, and pve_mapping_usb_list by specifying the deletion operation and mentioning re-creation via pve_mapping_usb_create.

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 explicitly states the dry-run default behavior and how to execute the deletion with confirm=True. It warns about the consequence of VMs losing the USB device path and potentially failing to start. It also notes that there is no undo and recommends re-creating with pve_mapping_usb_create to restore.

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