remove_vdi_machine

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: dry-run blast_radius contents (ids, names, states, assigned users), refusal when machine state is unreadable, the fact that the operation is Audited, and the required human-in-the-loop confirmation sequence.

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 [WRITE] tag and the destructive consequence are front-loaded, followed by the flow and safety instructions. Every sentence carries operational weight — no filler, no restatement of the name.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates what blast_radius returns and fully covers the destructive, audited, two-phase behavior an agent must understand before calling this. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema documents target, confirm, and machine_ids. The description reinforces the confirm semantics and adds workflow meaning (blast radius returned before removal, machine_ids sourced from list_vdi_machines), but most parameter meaning is already in the schema, so the added value is incremental rather than substantial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove machine(s) from their pool') and adds a crucial scope detail that no sibling carries: for instant clones this DELETES the backing VM. This distinguishes it cleanly from reset_vdi_machine, get_vdi_machine, and list_vdi_machines.

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?

Explicitly defines the two-phase flow: a bare call returns blast_radius and changes nothing, confirm=True removes. It further instructs the agent to show the blast radius, wait for the user's decision, and NOT set confirm=True on its own even if the user previously asked — a precise when/when-not rule.

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