subnet_delete

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It explicitly describes the tool as destructive, irreversible, and details the audit trail capturing prior state. The dry_run parameter is also explained for safe preview.

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 appropriately sized with a clear structure: risk tag, behavior summary, audit details, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (high-risk delete), the description covers purpose, usage, safety mechanisms, audit implications, and parameter details. No output schema, but the behavior is sufficiently described.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: ext_id is 'as returned by subnet_list', dry_run 'return what WOULD be deleted', target is 'Prism Central target name from config'. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a subnet' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as no other sibling tool targets subnet 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 provides clear usage context: when to delete a subnet, with a preview option (dry_run=True). It mentions the high-risk nature and audit requirements but lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools or when not to use.

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