storage_iscsi_remove_target

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical context: LUNs become inaccessible, the rescan side effect, error conditions, audit logging, and dry_run behavior. This goes far beyond the structured metadata.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a clear warning block, error conditions, reversal, logging, and argument details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 an output schema, this description is exceptionally complete: it covers preconditions, side effects, error cases, reversibility, logging, and all parameters. An agent can safely exercise this tool based on the description alone.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the Args section in the description thoroughly explains every parameter, including constraints (e.g., address must be an IP literal, port range 1-65535, dry_run behavior). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 'Remove an iSCSI send target from an ESXi host's software iSCSI adapter, then rescan all HBAs and VMFS volumes.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination, and it is easily distinguished from siblings like storage_iscsi_add_target and storage_iscsi_status.

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?

Explicit preconditions are provided: 'first verify the target exists (storage_iscsi_status) and that no datastores depend on it (list_all_datastores).' It also names the alternative for reversal (storage_iscsi_add_target) and warns when the tool errors, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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