pve_sdn_vnet_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses MUTATION, dry-run by default, the effect of confirm=True, and the irreversibility ('no config UNDO — re-create to revert'). It also notes RISK_MEDIUM. However, the meaning of '(PENDING)' is ambiguous and could be clarified.

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 with two clear paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and key behavior (dry-run). 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 existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values beyond what is provided. It covers dry-run vs execution, irreversibility, risk level, and a prerequisite (no subnet references). The ambiguous '(PENDING)' and lack of detail on lock_token and proximo_target slightly reduce completeness, but overall it is well-rounded.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dry-run PLAN for confirm=False and the {status, result} return for confirm=True. It also reaffirms that vnet must be an existing SDN vnet. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool pve_sdn_vnet_create by mentioning the alternative for creation, and also implies discrimination from update and list tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to delete a vnet) and when not (if a subnet references it, PVE refuses). It also provides an alternative: 'To create a vnet instead use pve_sdn_vnet_create'. This gives clear context and exclusions.

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