pve_sdn_controller_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses: mutation behavior, dry-run default, PLAN output, referential integrity handling (by analogy), confirm=True staging, return format, irreversibility, and risk level. This is comprehensive and honest.

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 concise paragraph of about 5 sentences. It front-loads the purpose and provides essential details. Each sentence serves a purpose, though a slight restructuring could improve readability. 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?

For a mutation tool with dry-run, referential integrity caveats, and irreversibility, the description covers critical behavioral aspects. It does not explain prerequisites like lock token handling or output schema (which exists, so not required). Overall adequate for informed decision-making.

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% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds context for confirm (dry-run vs execute) and controller (existing ID), but lock_token and proximo_target are not elaborated beyond schema. Added value is marginal, justifying baseline 3.

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 an SDN controller (PENDING),' clearly stating the operation and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_sdn_controller_create, pve_sdn_controller_get, and pve_sdn_controller_update. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains the dry-run default behavior and that confirm=True executes the deletion. It warns about referential integrity refusal and lack of undo. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, which would be beneficial.

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