Remove devices or links from a Huawei eNSP topology file by specifying the file path and optionally a list of device names or link endpoints (from, to).
删设备或删连线。
Args: path: .topo 文件路径。 devices: 要删的设备名列表，删设备会连带删掉它身上所有的线。 links: 要断开的链路，每项 {"from": "A", "to": "B"}。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| links | No | ||
| devices | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a key side effect: deleting a device also deletes all its associated links. It does not mention other effects like confirmation or rollback, but the main destructive behavior is transparent.
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 extremely concise, starting with the core action, then listing parameter meanings in a clear bullet-like format. 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?
For a simple destructive tool, the description covers the main action, parameter meanings, and a crucial side effect. It does not detail return values or error handling, but these are likely secondary given the tool's scope.
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 provides no descriptions, so the description adds meaning. It explains `devices` as names whose deletion cascades to links, `links` as pairs to disconnect, and `path` as a .topo file path. This covers all three parameters even though it is brief.
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 the tool removes devices or links, which is a clear verb-resource pair. It does not name sibling tools for contrast, but the intent is unambiguous in the context of topology editing.
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 implies usage for deletion/disconnection but does not explicitly contrast with `topo_add_devices` or `topo_connect`. The cascade behavior gives some context, but clear when-to-use vs. alternatives is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.