storage_iscsi_remove_target

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description details consequences ('LUNs served only by this target become inaccessible'), logging ('Audit-logged to ~/.vmware/audit.db'), and return type ('confirmation string'). No contradiction with 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 well-structured with a summary line, warning block, and parameter list. It is front-loaded and informative, though slightly verbose; still, every sentence provides value.

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 the tool's complexity (destructive write, 5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers prerequisites, effects, errors, and all parameters thoroughly. No gaps remain.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates with detailed parameter explanations: host_name format, address restrictions (IPv4/IPv6, no hostnames), port range and default, dry_run behavior, and target optionality. This adds significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Remove an iSCSI send target from an ESXi host's software iSCSI adapter, then rescan all HBAs and VMFS volumes.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinguishable from siblings like storage_iscsi_add_target.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool, includes prerequisites ('first verify the target exists...list_all_datastores'), mentions error conditions, and notes reversibility via storage_iscsi_add_target. This provides clear guidance on appropriate use.

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