Remove Rule From Topology

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the important safety detail that confirm_rule_name must match exactly, which is beyond the annotations. It still omits what specifically is destroyed, whether the removal is reversible, and error behavior on mismatch.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose before the prerequisites. It is compact with no filler, though it is arguably too terse given the missing parameter details.

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 topology-rule operation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema explanation needed (output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It omits how to obtain valid rule names, what happens if the rule does not exist, and meaning for two of three required parameters.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only clarifies confirm_rule_name (exact match), leaving topology_path and rule_name completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 clear verb+resource: '从拓扑移除一个精确规则' (remove an exact rule from topology). This distinguishes it from sibling add_rule_to_topology by operation and from other topology tools by resource. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('需要破坏性开关及 confirm_rule_name 精确匹配') but gives no when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as add_rule_to_topology. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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