pve_sdn_ipam_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation, dry-run behavior, PLAN output with token redaction, confirmation stages, lack of undo, and risk level. It adds value beyond the schema, though it omits handling of missing integrations.

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 and front-loaded with key behaviors. It uses formatting effectively but could be slightly more structured. Every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema exists and 4 parameters are fully described, the description covers the main workflow (dry-run, confirm, undo warning). It lacks details on prerequisites like lock_token but is sufficient 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 100%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already describes for parameters like confirm and ipam. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'delete an SDN ipam integration', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_sdn_ipam_create and pve_sdn_ipam_get by focusing on deletion.

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, how to confirm deletion, and warns about no undo. It provides context on when to use confirm=True and mentions referential-integrity refusal, offering practical guidance.

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