Delete container

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms permanence. It adds the behavioral instruction to ask for confirmation, which is useful. No contradictions found.

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 concise sentence with a clear warning, front-loading the purpose and key action. No unnecessary 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 presence of annotations and simple input schema, the description covers the essential point of destruction and user confirmation. However, it omits the required parameters, behavior when container is running, and other practical details that would aid completeness.

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 50% (force and confirm have descriptions, node and vmid do not). The description does not explain any parameters beyond implicitly referencing confirm via 'ask the user to confirm'. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 permanently deletes a container and its data, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_vm or delete_backup. However, it does not explicitly specify that this applies to LXC containers, though context implies it.

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 advises asking for user confirmation due to destructive nature, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., delete_vm) or the force parameter. No preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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