remove_vm_from_pool

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether the VM continues running, whether it must already be in the pool, or whether permissions are required). The description is minimal and provides no extra context beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. It contains zero unnecessary words and is appropriately 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 tool is simple (two required params, no output schema), so the description covers the basic action. However, since it is a mutation without annotations, it lacks context about consequences, prerequisites, or error scenarios. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete for a destructive operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what is already in the schema, but the parameter names and schema descriptions are self-explanatory (vmid and poolid).

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('VM') and the target context ('resource pool'). It is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like add_vm_to_pool, which performs the opposite operation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the verb 'Remove' and the presence of add_vm_to_pool imply its use case. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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