delete_vm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete a VM') but provides no warning about irreversibility, potential data loss, related resources (backups, snapshots, firewall rules) that may be affected, or permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose. It contains zero wasted words and is appropriately sized for its simple action. Every word earns its place.

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations and a non-trivial parameter set, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, side effects, prerequisites, or the implications of the force flag. The tool would benefit from at least a note that deletion is permanent and may affect associated data.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents node, vmid, and force. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not even restate the parameters. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 operation ('Delete') and the target resource ('a VM'), with the platform ('Proxmox') providing context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_container and delete_backup by naming the exact resource type. This is a specific verb+resource statement that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions such as the need for the VM to exist or the availability of the node. It does not mention that force deletion may be necessary when the VM is in use, nor does it differentiate usage from other delete tools. The user is left to infer appropriate usage from the schema and context.

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