Delete SMTP Auth Profile

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known without the description. The description adds no extra context such as irreversibility, required permissions, or dependent objects removed. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing.

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?

It is short, but the single sentence is pure filler: it repeats the title without conveying information, so it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test. Front-loaded formatting is present but the content is empty.

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 output schema, the description should at minimum describe the effect of deletion and any caveats. Given the annotations carry the safety hints, the remaining burden is small, but the description still supplies nothing beyond the title.

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% — both 'key' (Profile mkey) and 'domain' are documented in the schema itself. The description offers no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is a bare restatement of the title: 'Delete SMTP Auth Profile.' It names a verb and resource, but adds nothing beyond the name/title, and does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling delete tools (imap_auth.delete, notification.delete, geoip.delete). This is the textbook tautology case.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over fortimail.profiles.smtp_auth.get/list/update or the parallel imap_auth delete.

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