Delete an ungrouped firewall policy rule by providing policy UUID, rule UUID, and scope of global or zone. Removes unwanted rules from Security Director Cloud.
Delete an ungrouped firewall policy rule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | Rule scope: 'global' or 'zone'. | |
| rule_uuid | Yes | ||
| policy_uuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'delete' with no mention of permissions, irreversibility, prerequisites, or post-deletion actions (e.g., deploying policy). Lacks essential behavioral context for a destructive operation.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action. However, it omits important details that could be included without significant bloat.
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 lack of output schema and the complexity of the sibling tools (many policy-related operations), the description does not mention deletion consequences, deployment needs, or verification steps. Incomplete for a real-world usage scenario.
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 only 33% (scope has description, rule_uuid and policy_uuid do not). The description adds no parameter explanation beyond what the schema provides, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 an ungrouped firewall policy rule,' using a specific verb (delete) and resource (ungrouped rule). It distinguishes from siblings like sdcloud_delete_firewall_policy_rule_in_group by specifying 'ungrouped.'
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 ungrouped rules but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., for grouped rules, use sdcloud_delete_firewall_policy_rule_in_group). No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.