remove_vm_tag

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

Goes beyond annotations by detailing the return payload (a specific object with status, vm_id, scope, tag, not remaining tags), the exact-match removal semantics, and the immediate effect on dynamic groups. This enriches the annotation-provided destructiveHint and idempotentHint without contradiction.

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 appropriately structured with a summary, behavioral notes, and an Args list. It front-loads the purpose and keeps each sentence informative. Slightly longer than minimal, but all content is necessary for correct usage.

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 no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers return format, side effects, preconditions (use list_vm_tags), and post-conditions (re-check with get_group). It is complete for a mutation tool with these annotations.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so clearly: vm_id as the external ID from list_vm_tags, tag_scope and tag_value with examples ('env', 'production'), and target as an optional NSX Manager target. This adds meaning the schema lacks.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Remove an NSX tag from a virtual machine.' It specifies the resource (VM) and the exact operation (removing a tag), and distinguishes itself from siblings like apply_vm_tag and list_vm_tags by focusing on removal and noting that only the exact scope/value pair is removed.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use list_vm_tags first to confirm the pair' and 're-check with get_group' after removal due to dynamic group membership changes. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the guidance is practical and actionable.

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