destroy_virtual_machine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is destructive and irreversible, and that it handles VMs in any state including Error. This is good transparency, though it could mention how associated resources are affected. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentence plus a parenthetical note, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses a clear workflow arrow format. Every phrase adds value.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral information: workflow, state handling, and irreversibility. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool over others. Minor gap: no mention of return behavior, but not required without output schema.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (id and expunge). The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the workflow but does not tie it to the expunge parameter. At baseline 3, this is adequate since the schema already documents parameters clearly.

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 'Destroy a virtual machine' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the workflow 'stop → destroy → expunge'. It distinguishes from siblings like stop_virtual_machine by implying that this is the final destructive action, and mentions handling VMs in any state including Error.

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 implies when to use this tool (for permanent destruction) and that it handles the full workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., stop_virtual_machine, reboot_virtual_machine) provides implicit guidance. The 'DESTRUCTIVE - cannot be undone' warning further clarifies the use case.

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