Delete CDN firewall rule

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the "[DESTRUCTIVE]" tag is largely redundant. The description does add a genuine behavioral constraint — one rule per call, exact id required — but says nothing about reversibility, error behavior for a nonexistent id, or permission requirements. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is an adequate but not rich addition.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the destructive warning and the endpoint, with no filler. The bracketed tag duplicates the annotation rather than adding information, which is the only minor waste.

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 with no output schema, the annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers the id requirement, but it omits whether the deletion is irreversible, what happens when the id does not exist, and which tool to use to obtain the id. An agent can call it correctly but must infer the surrounding workflow.

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 50%: rule_id is documented in the schema ("Exact rule id from list/get — never invent") and the description reinforces it with "Requires exact rule_id", but the domain parameter has only a regex pattern and no prose anywhere. The description compensates for the documented half but adds nothing for domain.

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 (DELETE a CDN firewall rule) and even gives the exact endpoint path, which is more than the tool name alone conveys. It is distinguishable from list_firewall_rules, get_firewall_rule, create_firewall_rule and update_firewall_rule, though the differentiation comes mostly from the name rather than from the description explicitly contrasting them.

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?

"Requires exact rule_id" and "never delete multiple" imply the caller must first resolve the id via list/get, which is useful usage guidance. However, it never names the alternative tools (e.g. update_firewall_rule to modify, list_firewall_rules to find the id) or states when-not to use it, leaving routing to inference.

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