Deletes an existing firewall by its ID; use it to remove unused firewalls, but only after detaching all instances attached to them.
Delete existing firewall by id [DELETE /v1/firewalls/{firewallId}] Delete existing firewall by id. A firewall cannot be deleted if there are instances attached to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| firewallId | Yes | The identifier of the firewall | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the attached-instance precondition that can block deletion.
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 precondition is useful and front-loaded, but the description repeats 'Delete existing firewall by id' in both the first and second sentence. That duplication costs conciseness without adding information.
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 delete tool with full annotation coverage and full schema parameter descriptions, the definition is mostly complete: it names the operation, endpoint, required id, and blocking precondition. The main missing element is explicit remediation guidance when attached instances prevent 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only reiterates that deletion is by id and does not add format or handling details beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: delete an existing firewall by id. The HTTP endpoint reinforces the exact operation. An agent can distinguish this from create_firewall, retrieve_firewall, patch_firewall, and put_firewall without opening the schema.
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 gives one important precondition: a firewall cannot be deleted while instances are attached. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent what to do instead, such as unassigning instances first via unassign_instance_firewall, nor does it compare this tool against update alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.