Delete a VM and optionally remove its volumes, raw disks, and MAC objects.
Delete a VM and optionally its volumes, raw disks, and MAC objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vm | Yes | VM RID or name. | |
| node | No | Target cluster node hostname or UUID. Omit for cluster-wide. | |
| force | No | ||
| context | No | Named login context from ~/.config/sylve/config.yaml. | |
| delete_macs | No | ||
| delete_volumes | No | ||
| delete_raw_disks | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine blast-radius context (associated volumes, raw disks and MAC objects are also removed), but says nothing about irreversibility, prerequisites (VM powered off?), or what force changes.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the cascade clause follows. It is efficient, though the wording choice 'optionally' costs precision rather than 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?
For a destructive 7-parameter tool with 43% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits default cascade behavior, the force flag's effect, and any precondition such as stopping the VM. An agent could call this and unintentionally destroy volumes because the defaults are not surfaced anywhere.
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 only 43%: vm, node and context are documented in the schema, while force and the three delete_* flags are not. The description names the three cascade targets but omits their default-true behavior and never mentions force, and 'optionally' implies the opposite of the actual defaults, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (delete a VM) and adds the scope of cascading deletion (volumes, raw disks, MAC objects). It does not name any sibling (e.g. sylve_vm_action for lifecycle, sylve_jail_delete for jails) to differentiate, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says whether the VM must be stopped first, when to prefer sylve_vm_action, or when to pass force. The word 'optionally' actively obscures usage, since the schema defaults for delete_volumes/delete_macs/delete_raw_disks are all true, meaning the cascade is opt-out, not opt-in.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.