pve_sdn_vnet_delete

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

The description discloses that it is a mutation (destructive), has a dry-run mode, requires no subnet references, and carries RISK_MEDIUM. This is helpful given no annotations, though it could elaborate on idempotency or effects of successful deletion.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behaviors. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main action, dry-run behavior, and a key precondition. However, it does not mention the role of 'confirm' for actual execution, the 'lock_token' parameter, or what the output (plan) contains, despite having an output schema.

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 only 25% (only one parameter described). The description does not explain the 'vnet', 'confirm', or 'lock_token' parameters, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from the schema alone.

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 vnet' with the action verb 'delete' and the resource 'SDN vnet'. It is distinct from sibling tools like pve_sdn_vnet_create and pve_sdn_vnet_update, making the purpose 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 and the precondition that PVE refuses if a subnet references the vnet. It implicitly suggests checking for subnets before deletion but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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