machine_remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the two-phase confirm flow, the blast_radius return payload, refusal when a machine state cannot be read, and the 'Audited' note. It also explicitly warns about the irreversible deletion of backing VMs for instant clones. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the destructive warning comes first, then the two-phase behavior, then the refusal condition, then the user-decision instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'Audited' note is a useful one-word signal. No 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the return value (blast_radius), the confirmation flow, the refusal edge case, and the irreversible consequence. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the confirm parameter's two-phase behavior (false returns blast radius, true removes) and clarifies machine_ids come from machine_list. It doesn't add much on target, but the schema already covers it. This is a solid enhancement over the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Remove machine(s) from their pool') and immediately distinguishes the destructive consequence for instant clones ('DELETES the backing VM'). It clearly separates from siblings like machine_reset and machine_maintenance by focusing on removal and deletion.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: a bare call returns blast_radius and removes nothing; confirm=True removes. It instructs the agent to show blast_radius to the user and wait for their decision, and explicitly warns not to set confirm=True on its own even if the user asked earlier. This is strong, actionable usage guidance.

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