pve_storage_content_delete

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it's a mutation, dry-run by default, escalates to HIGH risk for backup volumes or attached disks, requires confirm=True to execute, and is async returning a UPID or null. This covers destructive potential, safety mechanisms, and execution flow.

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?

Two sentences, each earning their place. The first front-loads 'MUTATION' and the resource, the second covers dry-run, risk, execution, async behavior, and a prerequisite. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (deletion with dry-run, async, risk levels), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, safety, execution, return value, and prerequisite. Output schema exists, so return value is not needed. It doesn't mention node or proximo_target params, but they are in the schema. Missing potential error conditions, but overall complete enough for agent use.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 params. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the dry-run/confirm semantics and the risk escalation for certain volume types. It also recommends using pve_storage_content to find the volid, which is helpful context not in the schema.

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 the verb 'delete' and the resource 'content volume (ISO / template / backup / disk image) from storage', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings like pve_storage_delete (which deletes storage pools) and pve_backup_delete (backup-specific).

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use pve_storage_content to find a volid first' as a prerequisite. It explains the dry-run default and how to execute with confirm=True. However, it does not discuss when not to use this tool or alternatives, but the prerequisite and execution guidance are sufficient.

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