machine_remove

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

The description goes beyond annotations by specifying that for instant clones it deletes the backing VM, and explains the preview/confirm flow. It also notes the operation is 'Audited', adding useful context about logging. The description aligns with the destructiveHint annotation and adds valuable details.

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 succinct and well-structured. It opens with the core action and destructive warning, explains the confirm behavior, and ends with a simple parameter list. Every sentence contributes essential information without fluff.

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 no output schema, the description covers the action, the safety confirm mechanism, source of IDs, target configuration, and audit context. This gives an agent enough to understand the tool's operation and invoke it safely.

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 description adds meaningful semantics to all three parameters: machine_ids are sourced from machine_list, confirm controls preview vs. removal, and target references config.yaml with a default behavior. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this fully compensates for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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's function: 'Remove machine(s) from their pool' and highlights the destructive consequence for instant clones. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like machine_reset or machine_maintenance.

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 provides explicit usage guidance via the confirm parameter: confirm=False previews the blast radius, confirm=True removes. It also points to machine_list as the source for machine_ids. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, which prevents a perfect score.

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