pve_role_delete

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly labels the tool as MUTATION (HIGH), describes dry-run behavior, refusal of built-in roles (permanent, no undo), confirms execution returns a dict, and specifies synchronous, no UPID.

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 a single, front-loaded paragraph with every sentence adding unique value: mutation type, dry-run, built-in role protection, confirmation, return type, and reference to pve_acl_list. No wasted 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 tool's complexity (3 params, mutation, output schema present), the description is thorough. It explains the default behavior, safety mechanisms, return format, and provides a related tool reference, leaving no critical gaps.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds behavioral context for the 'confirm' parameter (dry-run vs execute) and notes the return type, providing value beyond 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 clearly states the tool deletes a role. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_role_create, pve_role_update, and pve_roles_list by specifying deletion and adding context about built-in roles and dry-run behavior.

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?

Explicitly says to use pve_acl_list first to check grants, indicating when to use an alternative. Also notes dry-run by default for safe testing and that built-in roles are refused, guiding safe usage.

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