Delete a specific rule from a firewall policy rule group in Security Director Cloud, using policy, group, and rule UUIDs to target the removal.
Delete a rule inside a firewall policy rule group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | Rule scope: 'global' or 'zone'. | |
| rule_uuid | Yes | ||
| group_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 must carry the burden. It states it is a delete operation (destructive), but provides no details about prerequisites, side effects, idempotency, or error handling. This is insufficient for a destructive tool.
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 sentence, which is concise but at the expense of context. It is front-loaded but lacks important details. Not overly verbose, but under-specified.
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 tool has 4 required parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not address prerequisites, return values, or error scenarios, making it incomplete for safe invocation.
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 25%, and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. The scope parameter has a description in the schema, but the other three parameters (policy_uuid, group_uuid, rule_uuid) are not explained in either the schema or description.
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 clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (rule inside a firewall policy rule group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sdcloud_delete_firewall_policy_rule by specifying 'in group', but does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sdcloud_delete_firewall_policy_rule or sdcloud_delete_firewall_policy_rule_group. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.