pve_sdn_subnet_delete

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

With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral insights: it labels the tool as 'MUTATION', indicates it's 'PENDING' (staged), mentions 'Dry-run by default', and states risk level 'RISK_MEDIUM'. This goes beyond basic schema info by explaining the dry-run behavior and the need for subsequent 'apply'. However, it doesn't detail the output format or error handling.

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 very concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose ('MUTATION: delete'), then provide key usage notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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, return values are not expected in the description. However, the description does not fully explain the deletion workflow—e.g., the difference between dry-run and actual deletion, or the role of 'confirm' and 'lock_token'. The term 'PENDING' is ambiguous and could be clarified.

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?

The input schema has only 20% description coverage (proximo_target). The description adds meaning to the 'subnet' parameter by noting it comes from pve_sdn_subnet_list, which is helpful. However, it does not explain 'vnet', 'confirm', or 'lock_token' beyond the schema's minimal info, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 subnet', specifying the verb and resource. It also clarifies that 'subnet' refers to the id from pve_sdn_subnet_list. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from other subnet operations like update or create, though the action 'delete' is self-explanatory.

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 mentions 'Dry-run by default' and 'RISK_MEDIUM', implying that the tool is for staging removals and requires an apply to enact. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of pve_sdn_subnet_update or other delete tools), and does not state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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