Delete an exempt rule from an IPS profile to restore intrusion prevention detection for specified traffic.
Delete an exempt rule within an IPS profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_uuid | Yes | ||
| profile_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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Delete', implying a destructive action, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permanence, required permissions, side effects, or response behavior. For a deletion tool, this is insufficient.
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 efficiently states the tool's purpose. It avoids fluff but sacrifices depth. Still, it earns its place by being direct.
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's complexity (destructive operation, two required UUID parameters, no output schema or annotations), the description is too brief. It omits critical context: that the operation is irreversible, that the profile and rule must exist, and what the expected outcome or return value is. The agent would be underinformed.
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 0%, and the description does not mention or explain the two parameters (rule_uuid and profile_uuid). Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema structure, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'exempt rule within an IPS profile'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sdcloud_delete_ips_profile' (deletes entire profile) and 'sdcloud_delete_ips_profile_rule' (deletes regular rule) by specifying 'exempt rule'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing profile UUID and rule UUID from list/get tools) or context in which deletion is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.