pve_tfa_delete

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: mutation, dry-run default, plan output, risk of lockout, password handling (never logged), and the critical note about auth limitation (ticket vs token). Entirely covers behavioral expectations.

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?

Description is somewhat lengthy but well-structured: begins with risk and dry-run, then parameter specifics, then critical auth note. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 and high risk, the description covers all essential context: purpose, dry-run behavior, risk, auth requirement, and limitations. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. No missing information for appropriate 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?

Schema coverage is low (20%), but description adds meaning: password is passed through but not logged, confirm=True to execute, userid and tfa_id are self-explanatory. The password parameter's description is added beyond schema, compensating for lack of schema descriptions on other parameters.

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 tool deletes a user's TFA factor, using strong action verbs and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools pve_tfa_get and pve_tfa_list by noting they work normally under token auth, while this mutation requires ticket-based auth.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: delete a TFA factor with dry-run default and confirm=True to execute. Strong when-not-to-use warnings: high risk, weakens account, can lock user out. Also states auth requirement (ticket session, not API token) and that the tool will 403 on PVE with token auth, guiding the agent to use read tools instead.

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