nat_remove_port_forward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the useful mechanic that rules are identified by their web-interface row number, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the change applies immediately or needs a reboot, required privileges, or what happens when the row index is invalid.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the destructive verb front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the extreme brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should do more. It leaves the agent without confirmation semantics, failure behavior, or any indication of what state remains after the deletion.

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 0% and the single 'row_index' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the value is a row number in the web interface, but omits how to obtain that index or whether it is 0- or 1-based, leaving a real ambiguity for a required parameter.

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 ('Supprime une redirection de port') plus the identifying mechanism ('par son numéro de ligne'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling nat_add_port_forward. It does not explicitly name the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions under which it should not be used. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Supprime'.

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